
'^mm 



liil 





"""111 

I 












':-^-'.. 






>^^". 









» ^ 



.\0 ^:. 



■. ■•■ , > 



S^'''^ 






v^'- S ^ ' ' ' // C 



j.'-W > 






'V' 









^* ,.^' 






,0' 



.•V 



\^ 






X' 



^^. 












^>' 






,% •/; 



■' ^t-t 






t' 






«*i, '^^ 

^-:; ->,,.., 



\^ 



0^^. tV 



■0^ 



»/■ 



"c^. 



i^ 



■> . ' ■^^' <^, * •, s > ' 



'^>.. ; 









#^ ^ 









. s 






'%<^' 
.^'\ 



c^ 



'I; 



%'■*■> 















./..^^.-^ 



CO 

"a 






^^. ■ ' « 



0' 



'^^ 






0^ 



x>^ 



^^^ 









a\ 



^<- 






"b 0^ 






*/-^^ 






.^^^' 



,. ^,0^ ^b/% . ^, 






"^o.'-', 



•/ 



'^z- C^ 



A^' 



c*^' 









.x< 









,-^^' 



,^^ -i;. 










^, 






.<^' 



.^^. 






o^^c-: 






^o 



■^ -^ 



"^^ f 










o 



lis 



r « s-i " . - ,-1" 






5>-- r> - - 

t (. ^ ■ \' '^ , I f <r> •^ » J- 



\r ^'' " /■ ^ . 

-^ 7- <p Cp( * . *^ 



^c^. 










0> s"- '*■ O, "^ \ 



Political Tracts, No. IJ;Pric©, $1.25. 



REPLY 



Hon. CHARLES G. L-DRING 



"y^-^-^ 



"-^ 7 



"RECONSTRUCTION." 





JOHN S. WRIGHT, 



OF ILLUrOIS. 



7 



These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word in all lowliness of 
luind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. — Acl:< xvii. 11. 




SOLD BY 

A. WILLIAMS AND COMPANY, BOSTON; 

AND J. R. WALSH, CHICAGO. 

1867. 



THE PITH OF THIS MATTER. 



HEADINGS. 

The Public must jurlge, not a few Civilians 2 

The Special Duty of the Busj' Citizen 3 

Judgment and Influence of Editors .9 

Judgment and Influence of the Clefg:y ........ T 

How shall tlu'se two Classes be reached? ........ 9 

Tracts instead of a Volume to be tried 10 

Entertain Reasonable Expectations concerning these Tracts . . . .11 

Massachusetts commends the Effort in advance 13 

Massachusetts refuses Aid to publish ........ 16 

Why should ^[assachusetts refuse Aid V . . 18 

Do not partisan Bitterness and Intolerance resist the Effort V . . . .19 
Are not Partisanship and Intolerance extreme in Massachusetts? . . . 19 
Intolerance is bred bv Ignorance ......... 20 

The Effects of lailigl'itenment 21 

Benefits to the Democracy 22 

Benefits to the Republicans 23 

The Best IMeans of Enlightenment . .24 

Responsibility for Success or Eailure rests upon Massachusetts ... 24 

Plan of Siilisci-iption 26 

Let us trust (ioi) and do our Duty 27 



Sending forth this Tract, No. II., to the jniblic, before No. I. is revised for 
publication in accord witli present purposes, tlie Reader is requested to consider 
these extra pages. The necessity of some exposition of plan and otijeot having 
been before perceived, the Explanatory pages and tlie Dedication were added, 
to whicli attention is first invited. Nor will even these additional pages afford 
much relief to the pressure of thought upon the importance to these Citizens of 
examining anew the principles of our Governmental system. But the delay of 
this publication needs explanation ; and as with these pages a long-cherished 
project is submitted to the judgment and determination of fellow-Citizens, first 
those of Massachusetts, and then those of Illinois, I bespeak the Reader's kind 
indulgence. 

I am (piite well aware — for flint-stone could scarcely resist the impression — 
that I am regarded an enthusiast ; and no kinsman, nor scarcely any friend, re- 
gards me other than a monomane upon this question of State Sovereignty. 
But they will find method in my madness, and that no one with either heart or 
head could have obtained any clear conceptions of this our fundamental princi- 
ple, and not be an enthusiast in its sup])ort ; and all the more so when he is de- 
rided on all sides as a traitor for his belief, whilst he knows that they are them- 
selves made traitors by their disbelief. This knowledge, and I trust a realizing 
sense of duty to my God and to my State, and to this Nation of Sovereign- 
States, have kept me at my proscribed efforts for over half a dozen years. 

My main object is to convince these Citizens that errors prevail concerning 
the nature of our Governments and Union ; errors fundamental, and held by 
the chief teachers both North and South, which, although directly contradictory, 
are alike subversive of our Governmental system. You will think me conceited 
to luidertake such a task. That remains to be seen ; but its magnitude and 
difficulties are, I think, better apprehended by me, than they can possibly be by 
others without considerable examination. Only because I have perfect coufi- 



2 The Fith of this Matter. 

dence in the corrective poucr of our compound system, wliicli will enable it to 
bear an immense amount of misrule ; and full faith in the good sense of these 
Citizens, which will ultiniatelv bring them into correct practice in spite of the 
erroneous theories with wliicli thcv have become indoctrinated ; have I so long 
persevered in endeavorinsr to convince them of the necessity of more thoroughly 
examining the principles underlying our system. We must be right in theory in 
order to pursue risjlit jiractice, in either Politics or Religion. 

That this project is wholly disinterested is not professed. While desire to un- 
derstand more perfectly tlie'naturc of our Governments and Union, was the sole 
motive to commence the examination, and kept me at it for over a year ; it has 
been prosecuted for the same practical object tor which almost every Citizen la- 
bors — to make money. At the same time, the pt^cuniary consideration would 
not have governed, for I had another that I knew would- pay better, had not a 
sense of duty to my country conspired with what appeared to be self-interest. 

Having evidently been led to study the nature of our Governments in a dif- 
ferent method froni any writer, and discovering errors in our chief teachers, es- 
pecially of the two leading schools of Massachusetts and of .South Carolina ; and 
perceivin<; more and more how indispensable the knowledge was to the perma- 
nent solution of our difficulties, it seemed certain that upon bare presentation, a 
large demand would be at once created for this new line of publication. The 
vie^vs seemed so natural, and so entirely in accord with common-sense, that my 
chief fear was that others would lead in their promulgation. After nearly four 
years of study, I endeavored to obtain funds at Chicago, desiring to publish it 
as a western work. But as explained in Tract I., p. 17, none could be made to 
see the importance of the subject, and I came to Boston to make one final effort 
to get my views before the public. 

The first step must be to exhibit evidence of the errors of these chief teach- 
ers, that finding we are in the wrong way, we may be willing to seek the right 
way. Therefore, taking for my text, " Politics, if a Scnence, needs Reinvesti- 
gation," I propose in a series of tracts to examine the writings and declarations 
of our chief statesmen North and South ; and also some of the popular fallacies 
of the two sections, received respectively from the antipodal schools of South 
Carolina and Massachusetts. 

The Public must .judge, not a few Civilians. 

As the published letters attest, and as is universally admitted in conversation, 
if this new view of otu' Governments and Union prove straight and true, the 
examination is of highest moment. To test my correc^tness, then, is quite de- 
sirable, unless it is evident at a glance that I would lead on a wild goose chase ; 
and in applying this test to me, please remember you also of necessity not only 
bring to the ordeal our chief teachers, but also our fundamental documents and 
insignia. I, with the latter, teach the Sovereignty of the People — of the People 
of each State — as the basis of their every civil right ; and that basis being the 
prime subject of dispute, every Citizen should cheerfullj^ do his part to promote 
examination. It is too important to be left to the judgment of the few juris- 
consults who have given any attention to the science of politics. They, indeed, 
are the least f(ualified to judge inde]jendently. They are already committed to 
their special theories ; and these theories, they and their predecessors have led 
the public, either of the South or of the North,, to adopt and jiractice. Few, 
too, are willing or able to take the time, endure the labor, of studying over what 
they suppose has already been well investigated. Pressed exceedingly with pro- 
fessional labors, weighty causes both ])ublic and private keeping them incessantly 
engaged in the most practical ai)plicall()n of principles ; the hour or two here 
and there which can be taken, they rightly judge is wanted for recreation, in- 
stead of over-tasking the mind with yet profounder thoughts. 

This is eminently the case with those in public life, legislative, judicial or exec- 
utive. Although they are best (pialilied of all to realize the necessity of thor- 
ough preparation for their responsible official duties, — and the better qualified 



The Puhlic must judge, not a feiv Civilians. 3 

for their new vofation, the more sensible are they of their own deficiencies, — 
yet their practical duties press too heavily to give time to examine with a view 
to uuderstandins tlie science of Politics. Though they want the knowledge 
more than ever, and know tlieir wants, they are less able than ever to make the 
accjuisition. 

So that while yielding to no one in respect for our eminent civilians, or in 
confidence as to their ])arriotism and desire to know and to do what is right and 
best, it would seem unreasnnaljle to expect them readily to adopt these views, or 
even to take the lead in considering them. 

It is lamentably true, however, that our best men are not usually put into 
official ])ositlon. That iniquitous, corrupting dogma, " to the victors belong the 
spoils," has ruled too elfiriently, for honest, cai)able, self-respei'ting Citizens to 
often have office ; the judiciary itself being no exception. What do these cor- 
morants for office, who have made even the noble word, politician, a synonym 
for laziness, plunder, and baseness — what do they know or care for principles ? 
Those of them, too, who have studied the law, beginning with Blackstone, as 
every one does, have become indoctrinated with his heresies ; and very few study 
enough to get rid of them, but plunge at once into practice, which engrosses them 
until they get office ; and, being lawyers, they imagine they understand not only 
the science of the Law, but of Politics also. 

And how many of even eminent civilians examine outside of Civil or Common 
Law ■? wliich to a considerable degree is requisite to their practice. Literna- 
tional Law, and the science of Politics, very few of them study. They may read 
Wheaton and Vattel ; but those works were never designed to teach the science, 
only the practice of law between States Yet fully believing that they already 
have ample knowledge of the subject, and that no new light can be shed upon 
it, how is it possible to convince them that the}- need to learn the very rudiments 
of political seience, in order to understand its principles? Judgment must there- 
fore begin with those coming to the question without this strong previous com- 
mittal. 

The Citizens generally, too, must judge, for each one is deeply concerned in 
the result. Very appropriate to these Free States is Solomon's counsel, which 
Stuart thus renders : — 

Where there is no guidance the people fall ; 

But by an increase of counsellors there is safety. — Prov. xi. 14. 

Plans without counsel are frustrated ; 

But by the increase of counsellors, there shall be stability. — xvi. 22. 

For with skilful management must xnou makk war for thyself; 

And there is discretion in much counsel. — xxiv. 6. 

Therefore, I write not for the devotees of politics who measure its value by 
their pockets ; nor for the learned civilians who, with their precursors, have in- 
doctrinated us with the fallacies and heresies which have led directly to the late 
terrible oci'urrences. Here and there will be one possessed of sufficient magnan- 
imity and liberality, to perceive and admit that he may not have obtained all 
possible knowledge of the deep masteries of political science. But he is only 
an exception to the rule. With Pilate will most of them say, " What I have 
written, I have written ; " for though the Lord of glory was the victim, not a 
letter of the superscription could be changed. So these teachers, although the 
next holiest cause, that of our country, be at stake, will hold to their absurd 
notions. We therefore turn from them t& consider — 

The Special Duty of the Busy Citizp:n. 

Every Citizen, who is good for any thing, is busy. Some are busy with scien- 
tific researches ; but their number is too inconsiderable to be taken into account. 
Such are not the men whose cooperation is souuht, but those diligently pursuing 
the almighty dollar — the driving and driven business man in the ordinary avo- 
oations of life. With that man I can sympathize, having all my life been one 



4 Tlie Pith of this Matter. 

of that sort. For "such I am writing, and such will ho interested in my views 
unless they should fall still-born. . . , , 

But these most praelical Citizens would judge nie ill qualitied tor the work 
proposed, were I to exjject lliem at once to adopt views acquired by years of hard 
labor, anil which recpiire them to cast ofl" tliose which have grown with their 
growth, until they have become second nature. Though the change will surely 
advance, it can nCver be sudden, but will recpiire two or three generations to be 
made complete. Even those who are to become teachers to the masses, have 
first to learn tiie rudiments. Years of study will be retjuisite for qualification 
to write the te.xt-books uliicli are indispensable to any general dissemination of 
the knowledire.' 

Probablv iiine-tenths of those in middle life will have passed off" the stage under 
the delusion of National Sovcreignt)'. While many of them, possibly most, will 
be convinced that they are in eri-or, few will obtain definite understanding of 
truth, not only for lack of proper text-books, but because their devotion to every- 
day duties precludes thorough study of any theoretic subject. The editor of a 
newspaper or magazine, and the preacher, are their chief teachers ; and these 
have first to be taught beibi-e they can teach. 

But the chief dilliculty of all is to make any of these Citizens appreciate the 
importance of more light and knowledge. How can they duly estimate the value 
of that of which they know nothing ? Yet, as jiractieal Citizens, they under- 
stand the importance of sound instruction lor their children ; and the conflicting 
opinions among our chief teachers, and the discrepancies between their declar- 
ations and our most authoritative documents, will prove to them, wlien duly 
presented, that the truth is not yet reaidied. The importance of sound text- 
books, that our children may be correctly instructed, thoroughly grounded, in the 
elements of their political faith, these practical Citizens can see at a glance ; 
especially in this land of the People's Sovereignty, in which our safety lies in 
the fact that like Lincoln or -Johnson, any other tailor-boy or rail-splitter may 
be elevated to the summit of power. And witnessing the exalted statesman- 
ship to which a Webster could attain from being a cow-boy, a Douglas from 
a cabinet-shop, what may not be expected in a generation or two when the prin- 
ciples of political science shall once have been put into shape to be mastered in 

1 Text-Books — Necessary Qunlificniions. A IVieml who appreciates the difHculties of 
reaching and correcting errors as to our Governments, advises me to write a work upon the 
Articles of Confederation and our Constitution, as a text book for scliools; which, while pre- 
senting my views, would correct errors in the most etficacious mode. But for that 1 am not 
qualitied, as stated Tract I , p. 18. A little knowledge may sutHce to discover errors in the 
works of otliei-s; hut a vastly greater stock is requisite to teach with certainty what is the 
truth. And no person shoidd assume responsibility as a wi iter of school-books, without 
thorough qualitication. Because no one of the commentatoi-s upon our Constitution was 
well versed in political science, their works are so mischievous. It is more charitable to 
believe that they had not ac(|uaintance with principles, than that having the knowledge, 
they coidd have made such perversions. In examining Story it will be seen that he had 
studied Civil and Common Law, but was no master of internal innal La^-, nuich less of the 
principles upon which that code is founded; and without careful study of both, it is impos- 
sible to write an instructive commentary upon our Constitutions, State or Federal. 

Do not understand me as assuming to myself umiualitied condemnation of this en[iinent 
American jiuist. He did well for his time;" and the wonder is that doing so much, he did 
so well. All I mean to say is that he had not qualifications to write sound commentaries 
upon the Constitution, and this I mean to jirove bv examining one of his most important 
chapters, '• Nature of the Constitution — Whether a Compact." " 

The author of any work of that sort in our coiuitry, which will have any real value and 
permanence, is yet a youth; and in early life must cidtivate a taste for political science, and 
.liter tweiUy years of study, giving daily one to six or more hours to that one subject, if 
possessed of proper (|ualitications otherwise, he will be able to write a valuable text-book. 
The man who adds another to our superficial commentaries, does his eountrv an incalculable 
evil. From .lohn Adams down, no writer has been dulv iiualitied; nor is it"anv wonder, nor 
at all to our discredit. Every nuui of them lias been overtasktd with the pres'sing duties of 
life; and the demand for the more practical books, especially in the legal profession, adapted 
to the Sovereignty of the I'eople— that form of (Jovenniient mikiiown to the world for 
eighteen centuries — has too much prevented attention to the science and theory of the 
Law. And wliat a study is it ! 



Tlie Special Duty of the Busy Citizen. 5 

childhood and youth, and a taste acquired for this noble study, and before busi- 
ness cares absorb, and habifs of thouo;ht exclude such subjects from consider- 
ation ! The fact that so many of our boys must be bred to the work-shop, and 
especially to the farm, securiu;; that healtli and vi^or which is indispensable to 
high intellectual attainment, is the very hope of our country; and the wise 
statesman sees in our public schools, those of Sunday included, a sure means of 
political advancement. For its efficacious employment, new text-books must be 
written teachinir the application of principles to our compound system, suited to 
the primary school, the liiuli-school, the college, the university. 

Mor will these j)i-aciical Citizens now expect any of their number to undertake 
the remodelling of ])olitical science, in order to«uit current notions. But in our 
present unexam])led difficulties, we would regard him an eminent benefactor 
who would take the science as it is, and apply the touch-stone of principles to 
our teachings and conduct, and ascertain what is true, what false. 

If these things be not understood, they ought surely to be made evident; so 
that the subject taken as the ca])tion of these Tracts is suitable for beginning the 
examination. In prosecuting this, we must call in the aid of })ublic teachers, 
especially the chief, who are supposed to have, and ouglit to have, and nmst be 
made to have, due qualifications to insti-uct. Wherein they fail to point out the 
way of truth to be followed ; they can at least be made to show the false way to 
be shunned. And where is the Citizen too busy to lend a helping hand in this 
most practical, most important oViject, next to religion, which can engage his 
attention ? 

Of the busy Citizens who will lead the public, whenever the right time shall 
arrive to consider this nevv line of investigation, my reliance is first upon the — 

Judgment and Influence of Editors. 

More than any other class, except Congressmen, are Editors qualified by 
daily labors to perceive the difficulties of the political situation, and the neces- 
sity of new light upon the involved subjects chief in public estimation. 

The onerous character of the practical (piestions pressing upon Congress, af- 
ford no time to study theories. Were their every-day duties less weighty and 
urgent, they would act differenti}' ; for knowing by experience the desirableness 
of more knowledge of principles, their own necessities would make them fore- 
most in the march of reexamination. It is to be hoped that the adjournment of 
Congress will extend to Deceniijcr, tlie recess being faithfully employed in the 
study of principles of ijolitical science. However theoretic in appearance, if 
they will study the Bible, Aristotle, Hooker, Grotius, Cumberland, Pufendorf, 
and Montescpiieu,' it will piove the most practical, most useful employment to 

1 Improper Jmhivient of Authorities. Makinc; so niucli of authorities as I do, and mean 
to do, it is prciUatily well to add something to § 3, in this Tract. As there stated, we have 
no intallil)le text-liook but the Bibie; yet wherein the chief authorities agree, — and there 
are none superior to those named in the text, — we are to receive their teachings as truth 

— as establisliing principles. Tliese, according to Aristotle, are not susceptible of proof, 
but are self-evident truths ; and the more the chief authorities are studied in connection 
with the Bible, the stronger will be our confidence in the essential elements of political 
science. 

One occasion of the differences of moderns in judging of these respective authorities, 
seems to be that each one's specific object is not snliiciently taken into account. Grotius, 
for instance, entitles his chief work. The Law or Jiic/ht of War mid Peace. He supposes a 
Nation in the xtalus or condition of war, and considers " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's 
God " applicable thereto, in order to properly lead the Nation to the legitimate end of war, 
whicli is peace. While the method of argument is imalytic, the principles are synthetic- 
ally applied; which he adduces from sacred and profane authorities, giving precedence to 
the Bible. His title is no less admirable than his argument; and had Dugald Stewart well 
studied him, he would not have complained of his lacking method. Paul's arguments are 
scarcely closer; and the conciseness, clearness and beauty of expression are lamentably lost 
in the Engiisii translations. 

But Pufendorf writes of The Law of Nature and Nations. That is, without reliance upon 
" the Laws of Nature's God '' revealed in the Bible, he applies " the Law of Nature " alone, 

— that is, the Law taught by God's works — to States and Nations. He has been cen- 



6 The Pith of this Matter. 

which their time and talents can be devoted, considering either the good of the 
Nation, or their own enduring fame. 

Editors, from tlieir daily duties, realize the same lack of knowledge, without 
the pressnre of res()onsibiiity, and of innnediate action ; and they naturally can 
and will take time to investigate as soon as tlie benefits are appreciated, the prac- 
tical character and necessity a|jprehended. 

Ill this busy, practical age, which, more than any other, must be concerned 
•with tlie events in dally, weekly, and monthly progress, the periodical press, 
from the diurnal sheet" to the (juarterly volume, slunilil and does have more 
power and influence than any othei- means of directing ])ublic sentiment. Being 
evidently tlie appointed instrument suited to tlie advance of our race to correct 
abuses and ascertain the rights and wrongs of governors and governed; occupy- 
ing equally with the Clergy the proud eminence in this age, and particularly in 
this country, which the Prophets held in ancient Israel and Judali ; that which 
after due investigation the Press condemns will be righted, unless we are des- 
tined for destruction. Individuals may misjudge, and there may be false Edi- 
tors as tlicre were false Prophets ; but the Press as a whole will eventually 
teach the truth. No country was ever blessed with an influence equally conserv- 
ative and healthy, as that of our newspapers and periodicals ; and of the wrongs 
and outrages incident to our late wai', none will be more deeply reprobated 
and un(jualifiedly condemned, than the interfe,rence by Government officials 
with the lii)erty of tiie Press ; and that, too, against the sacreil guarantees of 
the Constitution itself, which every oflicial had solemnly sworn to regard. 

Being, however, no more perfect in knowledge and wisdom than other Citi- 
zens ; sulfering with their fellows from erroneous teachings of a century past ; 
Editors are not now pi-epared to ])ass judgment upon the (jiiestions at issue, with- 
out considerable investigation. Some may condemn the entire effort I am at- 
tempting, as Ibolhardy, vain, conceited; and if such prove the mature judgment 
of the Press, it will soon find a deep oblivion. 

That all will see every thing as I do, is not expected. No doubt in endeav- 
oring to correct so much that is wrong, as great or greater blunders will be 
made. But if there be real merit in these views. Editors will soon discover them ; 
and if not ([uite well agreed as to the immediate point, the necessity of reinves- 
tigating Political Science, I must be far astray. Some may inconsidei-ately praise 
or blauie ; but the sober second-thought of the corps may be relied u])on ; and 
it will be almost a unit one way or the other. What they shall agree to con- 
sider necessary to the public weal, their fellow-Citizens will do or require to be 
done ; and text-books, and all requisite means thereto, will be forthcoming. 

My apjireciation of the worth of Editoi-ial influence will be shown in the dedi- 
cation to them of the Tract, Blunders in the Presii/enfial Election, 1864. Not 
invidiously, but ap]iroi)riately, has that been determined upon. Powerful as is 
their influence, responsible as they are for correct judgment, their becoming 

sured for this, and anionf;f otiiers by Leibnitz, as (Hiotoil l)v Mr. Dana in his recent interest- 
mjT course of lectures ujion International Law. Yet I do' not understand Leibnitz as con- 
deninnio- Pufendorf uni]ualitiedly, as Mr. Dana seemed to conceive. But L. thought P. de- 
fective in not <^i)]\\ff dee|) enough for his foundation of law, and for not finding his sanction 
in Diviue authority. He also complains of waiU of iibilosopliy. lUit to neither does the 
work make any pretence. 15eirinuinff with moral entities, and urovint;; their existence 
equallv with corporeal, he synthetically argues from one ]ioint to another, deriving from the 
Law of Nature alone a perfect code — perfect as auv thing human —for the Government of 
Nations, .t has not, of course, the full strength which could have been imparted, bad "the 
Laws ot Nature's Cod " as revealed to us, been also a]iplicd. Nor has the work much of 
what may be considered pbilosoijliv. But because the I'.ible teaches no philosophy, is it 
useless V 1 r J 1 

With the examination which I have given the subject, it is evident that a kind Provi- 
dence gave to the world Grotius' analytic argument, and I'ufendorfs svnthetic argument, 
e.stablishmg the principles of political science; and so completelv. that no one has followed 
111 their lootsteps. What is now wanted is for some vouth to uvt interested in the subject, 
and stud\- with direct reference to writing another work some thirtv or fortv vears hence 
with synthetic argument, making the Bihle the chief anthoritv. ' Where bur (loo com- 
mands, advises, or intimates, it ought to be abundant authority fiir .lew or Christian. 



Judgment and Influence of Editors. 7 

Editors makes them none the less a part of the piibhc ; and while in their duty 
as supervisors of publie interests, they raise a voice of warning or of threaten- 
ing, they are less the franiers than the exponents of publie sentiment. The 
most numerous, most influential part of their j^roductions, are exactly what their 
name indicates, — 7ic«v-papers. They are no more responsible for the blunders 
of that election, than are other Citizens ; no more for those blunders, than for 
the many egregious ones that have been made in the administration of the Gov- 
ernment from its beginning. 

But their intluential position in Politics renders it appropriate to dedicate to 
them that Ti'act; and if successful in the attempt to |)rove the blunders, it will 
go far to substantiate to them the necessity of reexamining Tolitical Science. 
Democrats and Republicans will discover that neither understand nor practice 
their own principles. They will find, too, that neither mere Republicanism nor 
simple Democracy is what either of them desire, but a compound of both with 
Federalism superadded; and heartily will they join hands in organizing a new 
political party of Federal Republican Democracy. I have, therefore, full faith 
in the aid my plans will have from the driving and driven business men, especial- 
ly the Editorial corps. Next to Editors, my claims and reliance upon these busy 
Citizens, are upon the — 

Judgment and Influence of the Clergy. 

Do not mistake me as desiring to turn our Parsons into partisans, or even into 
politicians. Far from it. The science of Theology is enough to engross the 
profoundest intellect ; to teach its practice — Religion — is an ample field for 
the biggest heart. God's Minister, who is qualified for his dutie-;, either in 
heart or head, realizes too deeply the influence and power of the doctrine of 
" Christ and Him crucified," for the correction of humanity's varied ills, blun- 
ders and crimes in Politics included, to be willing to ado|)t any inferior means 
of alleviation ; or to leave his advantageous position, of striking at the root of all 
evil, in order to lop off iiere and there a branch, great and inviting to assault as 
are the branches of political misconduct. Yet, while Cln-ist's Minister will 
more and more rely upon the doctrines of Grace to eflect the world's reforma- 
tion, he will imitate Paul's example, and heed his counsel in saying, — 

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in rigiiteousness ; that the man of God may 
be perfect, thoroughly furnislied unto all good works. — 2 Tim. iii. 16. 

The Master's words, too, will be remembered : — 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the propliets : I am not come to 
destroy, but to fulfil For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one 
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Who- 
soever therefore shall break one of these least conmiandmeiits, and shall teach men 
so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do, and 
teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. — Matt. v. 
17-19. 

The main difhi'ulty with the Clergy, as with other busy men is, that they, too, 
are com[iletely engrossed with the practical part of their duties, having no time 
to give to the science. The Avonder is that they can accomplish what they 
do. But with higher attainments in the science of God's Government, — for 
which books are nulispensable, and better pay in order to get the books, — we 
should have more political, less partisan preaching. And almost the whole of 
the Old Testament being occupied with teachings of man's relati(ms and duties 
to his Crt'ator and to his fellow, in the capacity of the State or Nation ; how can 
its practical truths be evolved except by preaching Politics V But to preach 
Religion, must sectarianism be enforced ? To preach Politic.-^, must partisan 
zealotry be promoted ? 

The better (qualified for their vocation, the exposition of Gi>d's Government, 
the better can they judge concerning man's Goverinnent. The Bible being the 



8 TJie Pith of this Matter. 

chief text-book of Politics as well as Religion, tliey are effectually conjoined, one 
nmninix into the other. Each supporting and being indispensable to the other, 
like faith and woi-ks they are rendered inseparable. Yet, as faith and works are 
distinct, so are also these branches of knowledge ; and while they are to be con- 
joined, they must not be commingled. So that while as ambassadors of God to 
men, the Clergy cannot descend to the arena of party strife ; they, more than any 
other class, can appreciate the close connection of things of time with those of 
eternity ; and especially the power and influence which the State has upon the 
Church. Even in P^ngland, one of their most excellent modern writers, Cole- 
ridge, said : — 

Oh that our clergy did but know and see that their tithes and glebes belong to 
them as officers and as functionaries of tlie Nationalit}', — as clerks and not ex- 
clusively as theologians, and not at all as ministers of the Gospel ; — but that they 
are likewise ministers of the Church of Christ; and that their claims and the pow- 
ers of that Church are no more alienated or affected by their being at tlie same time 
the Established Clergy, than by the common coincidence of their being justices of 
the peace, or heirs to an estate, or stockholders. The llomisii divines place the 
Church above the Scriptures : our present divines give it no place at all. — Literary 
Remains, Vol. iii. 119. 

No one can question that wisdom, even under Britain's Monarch ; for as a sub- 
ject, the Clergyman is part of the Nation, owing fealty to his Sovereign, at 
whose will Ciuirch and State have been not only conjoined but commingled, and, 
as we in this country believe, injudiciously. But the State must have the Church 
for its sup])ort ; and especially in this land of civil and religious liberty, where 
the State itself is sovereign. And not only as faithful liege subjects of their 
respective Commonwealths, but in their high capacity as Citizens, will faithful 
Ministers from Heaven's Court discharge their duty to God and man. 

Above all other lands, in this land of religious freedom, w here the State gives 
unequaled facilities for each and every one to practice and inculcate his relig- 
ious views, should the Clergy be the most devoted of patriots, thoroughly versed 
in the principles of political science, which afford them these unequaled a<lvan- 
tages. Solidly grounded as are our State institutions tij)on " the Laws of Nature 
and of Nature's GoD." what more ajipropriate for Church-teachei-s than to make 
constant application of those Laws to our practice ? 

Among the strong evidences of the Divine origin of Scripture, is that afforded 
by its political instructions. Occupying by far the largest part of the Bible, and 
in the most practical way, either by statute, or by relation of historic fact with 
approval or condemnation ; we have revealed to us with synthetic power the 
entire system of political science. None but He who as Creator knew what was 
in rnan, — his exaltation as he came perfect into existence, in the very image 
of his God; his debasement by the fail, and the necessity of Government for this 
compound, confiicting nature of good and evil, — none but man's Framer could 
have given such full and perfect instruction as to his Government. And different 
men, and in different ages, being made the mouthpiece ; with steady advance- 
ment in the application of princijjles to practice according to the progress of our 
race, yet from (Genesis to Revelation being perfectly consistent in airtheir teach- 
ings, and supplying a complete system of Politics" as well as Theology and Re- 
ligion ; none other than our God couM be the Author of our Biblp:. ^' 

Yet, only the elementary truths of Politics being revealed, nothiiiij of the 
phdosophy, — nor is any philosophy taught as to Reli<>i'on out of Paul's writings — 
man is doubtless endowed with his wonderful powers of head and of heart, to sUidv 
out the science of both. Must not the Government of the Infinite be best 
apprehended tlu'ough study of the finite ? And may not the full instruction 
given by the liible coni.-erning man's Government, be the means chosen by In- 
finite Wisdom to instruct us as to the principles of Divine Government? ' The 
clergyman who is familiar with the writings of " the judicious Hooker," will ap- 
preciate this idea. 

Infidelity is not more subversive of the Church than of the State. And even 



Judgment and Influence of the Clergy. 9 

a slight examination will prove that good and pious men, from misconceptions 
of principles, have cooperated with infidels. Early in these examinations a careful 
study of the writings of Locke and Rousseau, of Paine and of Paley, led to this 
conclusion, which is confirmed by Lecky's History of Rationalism. Older works 
have so much engaged attention, that few of the last half century have been 
examined with reference to this subject ; but Prof Maine's Ancient Law, and 
Dr. M'Cosh's Defence of Fundamental Truth, against John Stuart Mill, are 
strong steps in the right direction. 

The line must and will be drawn between those who have faitii in the Bible, 
and those wlio have not ; and the believer is to teacli religious and political truths 
as though he had confidence in both Teaching and Teacher. " I AIM hath 
sent me unto you," will justify positive declarations on the part of those who 
study sufliciently to make no mistake as to what Jehovah has declared, advised, 
or intimated. 

With those who " were more noble than those of Thessalonica," should we 
" search the Scriptures daily whether these things be so ; " and with that full 
advice and jiositive direction which Sacred Writ affords, and with that confidence 
in its Divine origin which prevails in place of the infidelity of a century ago, 
has not the time come to adopt, in regard to politics, Paul's method of argument 
with the Romans and Hebrews, and with a priori power, instruct these Citizens 
and States in their duties to God and to each other ? Is not this a suitable field 
for the American Clergy to occupy ? 

No doubt the close conjunction of Religion and Politics, will lead the Clergy to 
consider this line of investigation. If found to merit the consideration which is 
imagined, then more than any other class \w\\\ they judge impartially ; for with 
few exceptions they are without politii-al aspirations, and will study fairly for 
genuine science. They, too, next to Editors, have most influence upon the 
public, particularly in directing to subjects of investigation. His inrtuence from 
the pul[)it is but a small part of that exercised by the true Pastor. 

I totally misjudge, if the letters from Rev. Dr. Kirk (pp. 14, 1.5), do not fore- 
shadow the position which the Clei-gy will almost unanimously occupy as to the 
importance of this investigation. The letters from others also, in Tract I., strong- 
ly indicate this result. 

How SHALL THESE TWO CLASSES BE REACHED. 

These, then, are the classes — the Clergy and the Editors — whose interest 
must first be awakened, if as a Nation we make any considerable advance in 
knowledge of Politics. And in view of the dearth of instruction and instruc- 
tors of State Sovereignty, Paul's language concerning the Sovereignty of 
Heaven is appropriate : — 

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed 1 and how 
shall they believe in Him of whom tliey liave not lieard ? and how shall they hear 
without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is 
written, How beautiful are the feet of them tliat preach the Gospel of Peace, and 
bring glad tidings of good things ! — Rom. x. 14-16. 

He who is able to preach the doctrine of State Sovereignty to the conversion 
of thes(^ Citizens from the heresy of National Sovereignty, will indeed " bi-ing 
glad tidings of good things." Beyond comparison will they prove " the Gospel 
of Peace ; " and in radiance of beauty reaching to the very heavens. But how 
shall these " glad tidings " be best brought '? Can they be heard before they are 
"sent? " What eminent teacher of the North has been '"sent" to inculcate the 
doctrine of State Sovereignty V Has any " preacher " of State Sovereignty ever 
ascertained its strength when applied to National Union '? Have not the 
" preachers " of National Union ever made National Sovereignty their basis 
instead of State Sovereignty ? How can these Citizens " believe in " what 
" they have not heard." How can they " call on " the Sovereignty of the State, 
" in which " they have not " believed ? " Is it not time the People began to be 



10 The Pith of this 3Iatter. 

tau"-ht to have faitli in the People's Sovereignty, from which, under the Sover- 
ei<Tnty of Heaven, tlieir every eivil rii^lit is derived V 

In this tliankless task of preaching that doctrine concerning which most neither 
know nor care, and which nearly all tlie rest detest and despise, I would be an 
humble volunteer, and seek the" aid of fellow-Citizens to send enough of my 
views abroad over the land, to enable the public to judge as to whether the 
doctrine — which sui-uly comes from Heaven, if the Bible have any political 
teachings — be worthy of their attention. 

Tracts instead of a Volume to be tried. 

For reasons that will be given in the Introduction to these Tracts, it seems 
best to consider the topic, " Politics, if a Science, needs Reinvestigation," in 
separate Tracts, instead of making it the first book of an extended work as pro- 
posed in Tract I., p. 19. 

Tract I. is thus entitled: "Illinois to Massachusetts, Greeting! Conflicting 
Teachinf/s of South Carolina and Massachusetts. A Plea from the young West, 
the giant offsjiring of Union, for that Union, and for our Federal Government, 
as instituted by our honored Fathers. ' I.et well enough alone.' " It has these 
subjects: 1, The proper Means of Arbitrament; 2, The North, Republicans 
and Democrats, to lead in correcting Erroi's ; 3, Massachusetts should lead 
in correcting her own Errors ; 4, Conventions insufficient — new Text-Books 
required ; 5, A Book offered to the Consideration of Mas achusetts to start the 
Investigation ; 6, Otiier States may and should aid the Reform. A number 
of letters from leading Citizens follow, conunending the project to attention, 
etc., etc. 

Tract II., being this " Reply to Hon. Charles G. Loring upon Reconstruction," 
speaks for itself I do not regret its having been begun, for something of the 
sort was necessary to ascertain the course that Massachusetts will take in regard 
to the investigation of her teachings ; but I do regret that the delay in obtain- 
ing funds had not been anticipated, and this wasted time been taken in remod- 
eling the argument. 

Tract III. will be " Citizenship, Sovereignty." It was written after nearly three 
years' examination, as an '■ Introductory Compend " of a proposed work to be 
entitled, " Our Ftederal Union ; State Rights and Wrongs." Foui- years more 
spent in examination and reflection and disputation, confirm my judgment, that 
it is a fair epitome of what the work would establish, a work which I hope to 
begin to publish after a few vears more of study. The letters concerning it 
from Pi-es. Hopkins, Pi-of W.'C. Fowler, Prof S. F. B. Morse, Major-General 
Dix, Pres. AYoods, Hon. George S. Hillard and others, in Tract I, will commend 
it to attention, when interest in State Sovereignty shall suffice to make it reada- 
ble. Being stereoty])ed, as will be the others, copies can be printed when the 
public desire them. It is dedicated to my kind friend and patron, Prof Morse. 
_ A reply to Prof. Bledsoe's book, " Is Davis a Traitor ? " is noticed, p. x.xii. But 
■with the delay in publishing this, it would have been folly to go on with the 
preparation of another ; and nothing having been done towards tt, and several 
others being in a good state of forwardness, they will be first issued, if more are 
wanted. Besides, I am now more than ever assured of the propriety of bringing 
Massachusetts first to acknowledge its own wrongs, and doing something towards 
getting ourselves right, before we assume to teach righteousn'ess to the Soutli. 

The prepai-ation of these additional pages shows me that more of the same 
sort is wanted — not desired, but necessary"— to awaken general interest. For 
tins pui-pose, a paper prepared for the first volume, as a General Introduction to 
my proposed work, seems suitable. It Is designe<l to disabuse the Reader of 
partisan bias, and lead hitn step by step to acknowledge the necessitv of reinves- 
tigatmg the subject of Politics. 

Another, too, is about ready for i)ul)li(;ation, in dialoiiue form. Mr. Consolid 
of Mass., Mr. Secesh of S. C., Mi-. Doubtful Soutli of' Louisiana, Mr. Doubtful 
North of Mill., and Mi'. Union-any-how of California, all sons of Massachusetts, 



Entertain Reasonable Expectations concerning these Tracts. 11 

meet Mr. Hopeful Writer of Illinois, to consider the best means of effectually 
settling our ditliculties. Each as an honest patriot argues the sentiments of his 
class, bringing together the conflicting opinions prevalent, which Mr. Hopeful 
Writer corrects by a fair application of principles of political science ; tiiough in 
the main, as in this Tract, our own fundamental documents afford a sufiicient 
antidote. 

But after these preliminary pa])ers, perhaps before, the chief teachings of 
Massachusetts must be examined. Notes already written upon Story's Com- 
mentaries on the Constitution, Dane's Appendix to his Abridgment, and the 
Webster-Hayne, Calhoun- \W'bster controversies, can soon be put into shape to 
print ; and these will propei'ly introduce us to Tucker's Blackstone, the Virginia 
and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and all that controversy, John Tayloi''s 
views, etc. There is no lack of material, and it will be spicy enough to be en- 
tertaining, when once well under way.i 

Entertaix Reasoxable Expectatioxs concerxing these Tracts. 

First of all j)lease bear constantly in mind, that the present object is not at all 
to establish what is the right way, but to examine some evidences that we are 
very much in the wrong way. Only incidentally is the truth taught, for it would 
not be appreciated so long as Citizens generally have lull confidence in what 
seem to be fundamental ei-rors. So that our first object should Ijc to ascertain 
whether we are in error. 

That a complete system of political science would be presented and demon- 
strated in all these Tracts combined, would scarcely be looked for; much less in 
any one. Yet careful and protracted research having satisfied me, not only 

1 Messrs. Everett's, Curtis', oivl Motleifs Wriliiif/s to be examined. Possibly the first 
paper, writlen in the winter ot 18i!l-2, wmild liave proved the most effective beginning. Mr. 
JEverett's 4th July Oration, Mr. Motley's famous letter to the Lum/on Times, and Mr. Cur- 
tis' Histoi-y of the Ci.mstitntion, were examined. It being all I then expected to write upon 
the subject, it was designed to be eff'eetive in calling attention to the errors of the North, 
and of oin- chief statesmen of Massachusetts. Written before 1 had studied enough to find 
an}' extenuation for their errors in the generally erroneous teachings of the last century, my 
views were expressed in language appropriate ito these intelliirent deniers of the Sovereignty 
of their own C'onnuonwealth. and in positive contradiction of the Constitution — that Sov- 
ereignty to which they had timr and again sworn to bear true I'aitli and allegiance. These 
eminent teachers were selected, because they were living, ami abumhuitly able to defend 
themselves. Messrs. Everett and Motley appeared particularly reprehensible, in that they 
should have dared, in that perilous period, to have put forth such trumpery as a fair and 
correct exposition to the world of the occasion of our diftieulties, and of the nature of our 
Governments and Union. 

It seemed to be a suitable jiaper for issue under the auspices of an historical society; and 
it was submitted to the late Gov. Bradish with a view to reading it before the New York 
Historical Society, of whieh he was President. He said it was entirely a new view of the 
subject and very important, but that it would never do to read such a paper before the So- 
ciety. " Why Motley, E\erett." said he, " tiiey are like household words." But while 
deprecating the severity, he admitted that no injustice was done his friends; and that al- 
terations would weaken the effect — • that my object being to invite attention to the subject, 
it had best remain as it was. for, said he, " it will sell in Massachusetts by the thousand." 

It certainly is quite different in tone and temper from this Peply to Mr. Loring, and I am 
well satisfied that the discussion did not thus begin. But the investigation shall be prose- 
cuted, one way or another. For, with God'.s blessing, it shall be decided while I live, 
whether I am a traitor for believing in the Constitution of my native State; or the conceited 
wiseacre who renders it meaningless ami absurd, rather than be at the trouble of examining 
the most selt-evideni jtrineiples of political science, such as every school-boy should know. 
The dignity of the subject merits dignity of discussion: but it needs no extensive knowl- 
edge of human natiu'e to perceive that it may be made to take ([uite another turn. Duty to 
the cause will compel me to follow where others lead. 

Though devoid of personality, 1 trust, nothing is harder or more severe than the truth 
applied to errors; and the larger the error, the more there is for truth to shiver. So that 
though that paper must be remodeled to suit present times, and has not been looked at for 
four years, if I mistake not it will by and b}' be read in this region with some interest. 
Considering present inditierence to the examination, not to say hostility, it might have 
been a more effective means of taking the conceit out of the believer in National Sovereign- 
ty, than this milk-and-water reply to Mr. Loring. 



12 The Pith of this 3Iatter. 

of the perfect certaintv of political science, but of the entire accord of our sys- 
tem therewith, it would not be deemed out of the way to exhibit some of the ev- 
idences on both points, in order not only to awaken a desire to know more of 
the establishetl principles, but also the strenjzth of our system of Federal Repub- 
lican Democracy, and wherein its excellence and superiority consist. Accord- 
int'lv, as opportunity occurs, some i)rinciple is introduced by way of example, 
with res-ard to which the chief authorities au:ree, and is therefore indisputable to 
any one who admits that Politics is at all a science. Eyery Tract will afibrd 
more or less of this intbrnuition, thou>,di not in general relied ujKm in these ar- 
mnnents; for which our fimdamental documents afford ample and incontroyer- 
tible in-emises. And each Tract haying its specific object, tending to prove 
that " Politics, if a Science, needs Keinyestigation," the reasonable Keader will 
not exjject something different, or that out-of-the-way thoughts would be pre- 
sented whicli he would not credit without considerable examination, and which 
were not indispensable to the point in hand. 

Nor is it pretended that every opinion and statement of my own Is duly estab- 
lished. With the wide difl'erence between them and the chief teachings both 
of the North and of the South, they of course cannot be received as truth until 
vei'ified. As obseryed in the Explanatory, their verification here would not be 
looked for, nor in any of these Tracts ; nor will any attempt be made thereto, 
further than shall be necessary to the subject in hand. 

Therefore, no attempt is made herein to demonstrate my hypothesis of State 
Sovereignty ; only the falsity of ^Ii'. Loring's of National Soyereignty, and of 
resultinif errors in his arguments. Yet it is hoped that incidental truths will 
commend themselves to earnest consideration, anil create a desire to learn 
" whether these things be so." Surely will State Sov-ereignty be found to im- 
part a strength to National Union, of which it is impossible to conceive without 
thorouii'h examii'.atiou ; and confidence will grow with the study of the doctrine. 
And had this full mode of treatment been anticipated, as remarked p. xvi., to 
have traced Mr. Loring's mistakes straight back to his erroneous premise of Na- 
tional Sovereignty, would have been a proper vindication of State Sovereignty 
for the opening of the discussion. Allowance, too, will be made for the ab- 
sence of my books and papei-s, which would have enabled me by judicious ex- 
tracts, to have streugtheneil some of the weak spots. 

But 1 have no right to expect, even on the part of the most generous, to be 
excused if this argument prove fallacious upon the main topics. The ability of 
ai'gument from the stand-point of National Sovereignty, wouUl stimulate to cor- 
responding effort on the opposite side ; and the capacity of the writer for the 
task voluntarily assumed, will be judged by the result. The point now consid- 
ered, not being whether I can point out the right way, but whether I can reason- 
ably demonstrate that Mr. Loring is in the wrong way ; failure here, under 
present circumstances, would cast doubt upon my ability to maintain the affirm- 
ative of State Sovereignty. 

The counter-proposition may be left to the magnanimity of the Reader, and 
ought to be with all the more cheerfulness, because judgment must begin among 
these liberal-minded Citizens of Massachusetts, who in advance have so cordially 
welcomed this line of investigation. They will judge fairly and honestly of the 
weight of argument and of truth on either side, in spite of partisanship and in- 
tolerance ; and will guard the more against injustice, knowing the bent of their 
sympathies would be with Mr. Loiing, not only as an esteemed Citizen and per- 
sonal friend, but as the advocate of views to which nearly every son of the Bay 
State holds tenaciously. 

Let not imperfections of manner or style atfect judgment of views and argu- 
ments. Since the Explanatory pages were stereotyped, it has been said to me 
that " a sneering tone " pervaiJes the paper. If so," it is deeply lamented ; for 
I have flattered myself that the respect which ought to be and is sincerely en- 
tertained for the venerable and courteous Author, has been manifested through- 
out. But if faulty in this respect, revision would never improve it ; for while 



Entertain reasonable Expectations concerning these Tracts. 13 

esteem for Mr. Loring would always govern in expressions toward himself, con- 
tempt for the insufferable nonsense of National Sovereignty would become 
more and more prominent witli each I'cvision. Who could help sneering at 
National Sovereignty, who lias the slightest accpiaintance with State Sov- 
ereignty ? 

Doubtless, too, that polish in style is lacking, to which the literati of Massa- 
chusetts are so accustomed that they can scarcely tolerate a publication without 
it. Where they would use the glittering rapier, flashing like lightning with 
their quick and dexterous thrust and parrying, I have to use an uncouth blud- 
geon. The most finished rhetoric would find apju-opriate place in the advocacy 
of such a cause ; and its sacrediicss and grandeur are worthy the pen of a 
Milton or a Junius ; inspiring such geniuses to even loftier performances than 
those recorded, and which render their names immortal. But this would not be 
expected of one from boyhood entirely devoted to business in the West. Habits 
of thought and of expression, acquired by a third of a century of practice, are 
no more to be chan<ied in Writer than Reader. While these savans at home 
cultivate acquaintance with State Sovereignty, I will do my best by practice in 
these Tracts to make some of their attainments in rhetoric. Yet, though an 
Everett be wanted on this side as well as the other, these Citizens will admit, 
that if we must dispense with knowledge of principles, or with literary culture, 
the latter is much less important than the former to settle the momentous ques- 
tions of State now at issue. 

Massachusetts commends the Effort in advance. 

As argued in '" Conflicting Teachings," p. 10, " Massachusetts should lead in 
correcting her own errors." This being perceived at a glance by these sensible 
Citizens, in response to the first 22 pages of Tract I., I was favored with the 
strong letters published in the Addenda, from prominent gentlemen of various 
pursuits, and diverse politii-al opinions ; and far more of the same thoughts 
have been expressed in conversation. 

Nor is Massachusetts' approval at all surprising ; for if that positive contradic- 
tion exist between the schools of South Carolina and of Massachusetts, which is 
aflirmed, one subverting State Sovereignty, the other National Union, and each 
a main pillar in our Governmental edifice, it would be expected that these 
Citizens would desire honestly and speedily to inquire into the truth of the 
charge. They would be ibremost and energetic in the all-important work. So 
that although a very few manilested decided hostility, regarding it a " copper- 
head " effort to weaken the party in power ; these exceptions were so inconsider- 
able, that approval may be said to have been universal. 

In accord with these sentiments, and to make it a Massachusetts enterprise, 
and to have it begun in a manner commensurate with its importance, and as an 
example to others, it was determined to raise Sfi.OOO to publish the first vol- 
ume, in subscriptions of S300 each. Some five or six had promised this, though 
only Hon. E. R. Mudge, and my friend Mr. Geoi'ge L. Ward, had actually sub- 
scribed. But giving letters was one thing, giving money quite another; to in- 
duce to which these practical Citizens wanted farther evidence of utility. This 
led, as remarked, j). xv., to this " Reply" to Mr. Loring, of which, for reasons 
soon given, cojjies of the first 96 pages were sent to tour of the leading papers. 
The " Post" of 15th February, favored me with the following notice : — 

We liave received from Mr. J. S. Wright, of Illinois, the first 96 pages of his " Re- 
ply to Hon. C. G. Loring upon ' Reconstruction.' " j\Ir. \V."s letters of introduction 
entitled him to a candid consideration of liis views concerning the nature of our 
Governments, and the causes of our variance atid strife ; and a glance through these 
pages gives jiromise that new light may be shed upon these subjects, and conflict- 
ing opinions become harmonized, b}' a more thorough application of the principles 
of political science. 

We reserve our judgment of the eff()rt until the pamphlet is completed ; and 
meanwhile commend it to the further aid of those who can appreciate the desirable- 
ness of settling our difiiculties according to sound principles, rendering the remedy 



14 Tlie Pith of this Matter. 

sure and permanent. Slioukl tliese views prove correct, a more important line of 
investigation was never presented. Tlie pnges are liandsomely stereotyped from 
the Riverside Press, bv tlie aid (.f some of our most esteemed citizens ; and tunds 
are now wanted to print a couple of tliousand for distribution and sale. We doubt 
not they will be at once sujiplied. 

Also the " Ti'avellcr " of the -iUtli of February, had the following : — 

"TheKeply " of Mr. Wright, of Illinois, to the Hon. Chas. G. Loring's pamph- 
let on " Reconstruction," is aiuiounced to be published in a few days. We have 
read portions of the work, and can sny that it is written with striking ability, Mr. 
Wright proving himself a not unuortliy antagonist of one of the first publicists of 
the day. It isljelieved by many that Mr. Wright's work deserves an extensive cir- 
culati(m, and they have helpeil him to have it stereotyped; but more assistance is 
needed to iiave it printed, and we doubt not that some of our citizens will afibrd 
the aid desired. 

The " Transcript " of February 2-2(\ contained the following communication 
from a strong Rej)ublican, a mutual friend of Mr. Loring and myself: — 

Reconstruction. — The difficulties of this great political problem challenge the 
ablest intellects and profoundest investigation. Hardly any two of the doctors 
agree as to the elements of the problem ; they differ in the diagnosis and the reme- 
dies. Mr. Loring's pamphlet was received with great satisfaction, and his positions 
accepted by many as giving the true legal view of this question of the day, and its 
proper solution. 

We have seen the advance sheets of a reply to Mr. Loring by Mr. John S. 
Wright, a gentleman from Illinois, combating with great learning and ability the 
principal points made by Mr. Loring. It is a handsomely printed pamphlet from 
the press of Houghton & Co., and will doubtless command the attention of reflect- 
ing men. L. 

It is also well known to every one applied to for a subscription, that three 
prominent Citizens, among those best cjualified to judge of the paper, carefull}- 
revised the proofs and have strongly commended it to any asking their judgment. 
One in particular, Dr. Kirk, had very little faith in the outset, as to the probabil- 
ity of proving any considerable errors in the chief statesmen of the North, but 
consented as a personal favor to revise a proof-sheet. To present in contrast his 
previous with his concluding opinions, he consents to the printing of a private 
note, returning some of the sheets when about one third had been corrected. It 
exhibits the consideration given the subject ; and the views are precisely those 
that ninety-nine in one hundred of these Citizens would entertain upon begin- 
ning the exaiuination. 

Crillckm from Rev. E. N. Kirk, D. D. 

J. S. Wright, P>sq. — Dear Sir, — The farther I go in the examination of your 
views, the more deeply I am impressed with the fear that your whole caste of 
mind and feeling is extremely conservative. 

You seem to me to make Aristotle, I'ufiendorf, and Grotius, an infallible Script- 
ure. I have searched in the proofs I have to-day for an expression which must 
have been in some former strip. It ridicules the idea that we can get any new 
light on political science. riie Trpinov ij/ei/Sos seems to be that our only business is 
to discover what Aristotle and I'ullendorf said. 

Now if you mean that Aristotle went in advance of his age, and, that we have 
not yet come uj) to him, I am prepared to believe you may be right. But if you 
speak of these men's opinions as authority, I utterly demur. I bow to no intel- 
lectual authority but that of God's word.i (Jjiinions are not what I seek in unin- 
spired authors; but the reasons of opinions, and their testimony where they had 
better opportunities of ascertaining facts than are enjoyed by me. 

Aristotle was the idol of the intellectual world for twenty centuries. Bacon and 
Luther, Wickcliffe and Calvin, were the iconoclasts who disj)laced him. The 
monks who fought the Heformation gloried in Aristotle. Oxford University is not 
yet free from his tnimmels, and out of that University has come the genius of Brit- 
ish diplomacy and legislation, which I do not admire. 

1 Just what I had said, p. 9 of Tract I. See foot-note, p. 5 preceding. 



Massachusetts commends the Effort in advance. 15 

lam not acquainted with the gentleman (Aristotle) to an extent that authorizes 
me to form a direct and positive judgment of liini. But judging a tree by its 
fruits I confess I am afraid of Ids influence. 

As words and opinions liurt no one's skin, I throw these at you. If you see 
they are only evidence of limited knowledge, set them down at that. But 1 do love 
the free open air, and God's blue sky above me. I loathe tlie cobwebs and musty 
damps of the old cloisters I look joyously to the approaching dawn, and am thank- 
ful that the Past is past. 

Yours most truly, 

Boston, Jan. 21, 1867. Edw. N. Kirk. 

My response, orally, was satisfactory ; but all these ramifications cannot be 
followed. When the p roof- re ad i no- was finished, knowing that the argument had 
shaken Dr. Kirk's confidence in National Sovereignt}', the further favor was 
asked of his written opinion of the pro|)riety of aiding to lay the views before the 
public, to show [U'ivately to a few lie})ublicans whose coo[)eratiou was expected. 
The following y&vy satisfactory letter was writtcin, which, upon request two 
months later, the esteemed author consents to have published, saying, with em- 
phasis, after reading it over, that refle(;tion confirms him more and more in the 
truth of State Sovereignty. 

, Final Judrpnent of Rev. E. N. Kirk, D. D. 

J. S. Wright, Esq. — Dear Sir, — 1 am reluctant to take any part in this move- 
ment. But, fairness to you and zeal for our country constrain me to express my 
opinion of your review of Mr. Loring's able Exposition If you had taken up the 
catch-words of one party, and aimed simply to diminish the influence of its antag- 
onist, I should say, we can bu}' that by the ream in the streets. But, when a 
gentleman has profoimdly sttidied the ([uestion next in importance to that of our 
holy religion, — the foundation-principles of government and civil society ; when 
he has shown, as you ai)pear to me to have shown, the essential historical error of 
the positions assumed by such eminent teachers as Mr. Curtis and Mr. Loring ; (I 
mean as to the States having each an integral existence before the Eederal Govern- 
ment existed; a fact vital to this whole discussion;) when it is evident that we 
have not reached firm anchorage in j)rinciples for reconstruction or for future ad- 
ministration, I must believe the highest public interests call for just such a dis- 
cussion as is to be found in Mr. Loring's work, and your lieply to it. 

1, as yet, cannot accept all your positions. But I shall feel obliged to the writer 
who will enable me to reject them for sufficient reasons. If none can, I accept them. 

When we shall have settled the reality, the sacredness, the inestimable value of 
the Union of these free and lnde|)endent States ; when we shall have assured honor 
and safety to Southern loyalists, and put a thorough check on Southern and North- 
ern disloyalty ; when we shall have banished the last particle of the virus of negro- 
phobia from our organic laws ; when we shall have put the nation in safety against 
those who have not forgiven it for breaking the bubble of a modern Oligarchy; 
then I anticipate our dangers may arise from other and even opposite quarters. 
You are right in warning us against consolidation, or merging the functions of the 
Federal Government in either of its branches, whether the Executive, Judicial, or 
Legislative. 

You fear the latter at present i I do not. It is our only hope that Congress 
shall resist the Executive and the Judiciary so far as they attempt to strengthen 
the enemies of our government. 

In a word, I am more convinced than ever by the very able, and yet very unsat- 
isfying exhibition of our political system and condition made by Mr. Lormg, that 
the time has come for an exhaustive discussion. 

Your pamphlet must quicken thought, and put many minds on new tracks. If 
we can show that you are wrong, you will then have profited us, for we shall be the 
more intelligently and firmly grounded in our principles, after having exposed your 
fallacies. 

I trust therefore you may be aided to bring your work before the public. 

Yours in the love of the Republic, 

Stamford Street, Feb. 22, 1867. Edw. N. Kirk. 

Washington's Birthday. 

1 I fear no permanent injurj' from Congress; for as that Department is a check upon the 
Executive and Judiciary, they, too, are checks upon Congress. 



16 The Pith of this Matter. 

To reach the earnest thinking Clergy, of whom Dr. Kirk is an eminent exam- 
ple, is very important, as ah-eady remarked. The change of opinion exhibited 
in these k'tters, will be general with them, as soon as the solid foundation of 
political science comes to be apprehended. That so little of it is exhibited in 
these pages, is to be lamented; but if they serve to shake confidence in the 
dogma ot'^ Naiional Sovereignty, it will not be long ere Divines become diligent 
inquirers into State Sovereignty, and in the main they will recognize the cer- 
tainty of political equall}- wiih religious truth. Then they will not fear Conser- 
vatism, wliicli holds fast to the eternal principles revealed to us by our GoD. 
We are in a world of progress; }et to create principles is no more man's sphere, 
than to create worlds. The leading fundamental truths of both Politics and 
Religion are given us in the Bible ; and man makes progress in one or the other 
by improving in his application of those principles to practice. 

Obsfivf, i)r Kirk does not say that he absolutely adopts my views, but unless 
they can be proved unsound, he can discover no objet;tion to their being received 
as sound truth. That is all which should be expected or desired. Not until the 
basis of State Sovereignty is well apprehended, can existing notions be uprooted, 
and the new and sound faith be substituted. The Clergy, in my judgment, are 
generally as open to conviction as Dr. Kirk ; and if the perusal of this first 
Tract has a like effect upon others, the; general distribution of a few of them 
will create a wide-spread interest in the examination. No doubt conversation 
has aided somewhat to explain the doctrine of State Sovereignty ; but a few 
of these Tracts will much more methodically present the basis of my political 
faith. 

Another gentleman is Hon. G. S. Hillanl, who has already expressed his 
opinion of the iniportance of this line of investigation, in his strong commenda- 
tion of the previous ])aniphlet, ' Citizenship, Sovereignty," in Tract I., p. 26. 
Though, as a thorough Websterian, he is not yet convinced that the National 
Government is not sovereign, yet this Ti-act confirms his previous judgment of 
the necessity of further examination into the nature of our political insti- 
tutions. 

The third gentleman, though utterly unwilling to let his name be used in this 
connection, has given too unmistakable evidence of his interest in the endeavor, 
to doubt his accord with the sentiments of the others. 

The fact that these three Citizens, — than whom the judgment of no other 
three upon such a subject is more entitled to respect and confidence — es- 
teemed the paper worthy of their careful revision in proof-sheets, and after that 
thorough scrutiny can commend it to their special friends for aid, although dif- 
fering themselves in political sentiments ; ought to commend it to the candid 
consideration and patronage of every Citizen who is not too thoroughly partisan 
to be in the least j)atriotic. No one of them concurs in all the views and argu- 
ments, or approves wholly the mode of presentation, for which I am responsible, 
and sometimes against their advice. Nor could they agree with me entirely, 
without a thorough presentation of argument, to which the Tract makes no pre- 
tence. But in their united opinion, it docs exhibit difficulties in the way of the 
genei-ally received ideas of National Sovereignty, which should induce those 
who have means, to aid in the distribution of the views sufficiently to enable the 
public to judge of their correctness. 

Massachusetts refuses Aid to publish. 
To judge from the strong commendation of the letters in advance, published 
in the Addenda to Tract I., it would be infi-rred that the means recjuisite to a 
proper commencement of a reinvestigation of the principles of our Governments, 
would at once be forthcoming in Massachusetts. This liberality and magna- 
nimity, however, had not been anticipated ; and in Tract I., p. 21, which drew 
forth those letters, were the following remarks : — 

Indeed, the frankness and sincerity wliich I claim as entitling these efforts to at- 
tention, and mean shall ever characterize them, require the admission that I expect 



Massachusetts refuses Aid to publish. 17 

more aid from brotliers abroad than brothers at home. A removal to another sec- 
tion, with the strength of affection every true-hearted son bears to the land of his 
nativity, imparts a realization to the benefits of National Union, whicli the son re 
maining in his native State cannot feel. Then, those of us who have removed to 
the West, would be poor representatives of a genuine JNIassachusetts head and 
heart, if the great lakes, broad prairies, big rivers, had no influence to expand our 
ideas and feelings. We love the Bay State dearly as any son at home : and the 
love of our whole countrj' ought to be stronger than any there can know. I do 
expect, and shall have, ultimately, liberal patronage from Massachusetts proper, if 
my work possess merit : but they will have to be spurred to it by the sons away. 
The bitterness and intolerance of ignorance and prejudice, more intense in politics 
than in religion, are to be more easily overcome out of than in New England. 
The few, then, wlio in the outset will favor my project, have much to do to coun- 
teract this prejudice. 

It seemed too much to expect of human nature, that criticisms of the chief 
statesmen and jurists of the Bay State would be favored by relatives and warm 
personal friends. They would deny or doubt the possibility of important errors, 
and would be oflfended at the very proposition. My design then was to visit 
different parts of Massachusetts, conferring with leading Citizens, and obtaining 
such aid as they would volunteer ; but especially to learn about those who had 
emigrated, being certain that among them were men of wealth and influence 
who would see this subject as 1 did, and gladly supply funds to call attention to 
this line of investigation. 

The more, though, I conversed with these Citizens, the more it seemed that 
I had misjudged them, and that if the project could be carried at all, the solid 
men of Boston were the men to do it. But while these Citizens heartily ap- 
proved, sincerely commended the general object of examining the principles 
of political science in their application to our system ; promises to pay the 
printer, with a few notable exceptions, could only be obtained upon very cer- 
tain evidence that the enterprise itself would ])ay, and yield practical results. 
To afford this evidence, this " Reply " to Mr. ].,oring was suggested, as re- 
marked, p. XV. ; it being naturally inferred, that if I could successfully refute 
the arguments of this able and experienced counselor, and those, too, grounded 
upon the popular belief of National Sovereignty, these patriotic Citizens and 
lovers of truth would cordially welcome and liberally pay for the enlightenment. 
To defray the cost of this, four gentlemen had given $100 each, which was sup- 
posed sufficient ; but the manuscript being a good deal interpaged, for no part 
could be taken up without making some indispensable addition, the cost was 
more than had been anticipated ; and while the type-setting was in progress, 
some 50 pages were added, without which the " Reply " would have been very 
incomplete, as they contain the running commentary of §§ 38 and 39. Having 
difficulty in finding further contributors, copies of the first 96 pages were sent 
Editors as just remarked. Certainly the commendations in the " Post," " Trav- 
eller," and " Transcript " were quite as much as could have been expected ; but 
even with Dr. Kirk's letter, and the aid of several who have lost no opportunity 
to speak a favorable word, it has been impossible to obtain funds. The effort to 
print 2000 copies was several weeks ago abandoned ; and to have printed 500 
would have been quite satisfactory. Not, however, until the last of April has 
it been possible to obtain sufficient means. 

With a few complete copies to submit to Editors and the Clergy and others 
in the vicinity, the merits of the project can now soon be determined ; and will 
be, one way or the other. ,The public Press will probably see that it is one that 
should be either fostered or destroyed ; and notwithstanding adverse inffuences, 
Editors will no doubt judge discreetly, and their decision be cheerfully accepted. 
Should they pronounce in favor, the requisite funds will be forthcoming ; if 
adverse, further efforts will be suspended, until by prosecuting some long-cher- 
ished plans of business, in which success seems quite sure, I can print without 
troubling Citizens of Massachusetts for money. But they will contribute ulti- 
mately, for points in the investigation will be found decidedly interesting. 
d 



18 Tlie Pith of this Matter, 



Why should Massachusetts refuse Aid ? 

Possibly the very natural and proper reason for even refusing me a hearing 
may be, that it is altogether improbable the learned and able statesmen of Mas- 
sachusetts should have been uninformed upon important topics in political 
science ; and that my case is only another illustration of the danger of a little 
knowledge. But by the kind aid of a few, and one in particular, that is now to 
be no longer a matter of doubt. With the publication of these pages, sufficient 
evidence fs afforded as to the possibility of errors, unless the task undertaken is 
beyond my powers. If no fallacies are detected in Mr. Loring's premises, argu- 
ments, or conclusions, then witliout a doubt I am under a foolish hallucination. 
Those found in him may exist in others ; and, if found, our examination should 
be furthered, not discountenanced. 

Some. who favored the project in the abstract, dislike it in the concrete, inas- 
much as Mr. Loring is first criticized. Are not reasons therefor good and suffi- 
cient ? Because it seems expedient to begin with his argument, it being recent, 
and the ablest to be found on the side of National Sovereignty ; ought not his 
friends to have more confidence in both their cause and their champion than to 
refuse countenance to an examination of his views regarding a subject of this 
character and magnitude ? If this experienced advocate be right, it will soon 
be made apparent to his vindication and my discomfiture ; if he be wrong, no 
one more desires to know it than this very Author criticized. But these amici 
curice would be more faithful defenders of the court than the court itself. 

Others take offence that I assume to criticize the revered statesmen who have 
gone from us, as Webster, Story, Everett, etc. But can any thing foolishly said 
do real injury to those sacred names ? If they have made mistakes, does not 
their powerful influence require more than aught else to liave the wrong righted ? 
Did they love error or truth ? Which would they from their graves bid you 
to foster ? As remarked by a number of these Citizens in iheir published let- 
ters, my criticisms can do no harm, for there will be a plenty of defenders. 

Some find an excuse in their liberal subscriptions for other things, particu- 
larly for the famishing South. They are the persons of all to be appealed to, 
and the cause fails without their aid. Because a wise Providence gives the 
North an opportunity to exhibit the genuine friendship and affection we bear 
the South in spite of their folly and guilt, in feeding them with that bread which 
perishetli, does our duty there end ? We want to make them see and feel that 
they made themselves enemies to those who desire to be and are their best 
friends ; and that we recognize truly the claims of kindred and of Nation, and 
would heed the injunction, " What GoD hath joined together, let not man put 
asunder." 

Witliout a doubt, the gift of millions at this juncture in feeding the hungry, 
clothing the naked, will prove our most profitable investment of many years, ill 
which we should have ten investors where we have not one ; and would that we 
had a dozen Peabodys to aid in the immense work of public education in the 
South ! But with the influence upon their hearts which these benefactions will 
have, would not a few thousands be well spent in calling their attention to a 
line of investigation which will surely cause the discovery and removal of the 
very root of our difficulties ? //" Massachusetts will lead off in correcting her 
own errors as to State Sovereignty, as those letters attest ; what so suitable as 
for her sons to make it efficacious by a liberal distribution of these and similar 
works throughout the South, teaching the strength of National Union ? While 
feeding their bodies with bread that perisheth,"let us feed their souls with the 
bread of life. Emphatically, " This ought ye to have done, and not to leave 
the other undone." 

These busy Citizens, however, imagine they have quite a sufficient reason for 
decHning to subscribe, in that they have not time to examine. But the general 
expression in favor of a fair and honest examination, precludes the necessity of 
considering any other point than whether this be honest and fair. The en- 



Wliij should Massachusetts refuse Aid? 19 

deavor Is not to establish some new-fangled theory; but, as in INIr. Loring's case, 
to bring us back to the consideration of our fundamental documents. Have 
sons of Massachusetts any fear of injury from an honest application to their 
teachings, of their own Constitution ? Must not some other motive cause aid to 
be withheld ? Almost any of them give every month to one or more objects of 
benevolence, with less evidence of utility than they have as to this, and more 
than is here wanted. If, then, neither selfishness, nor lack of time to consider, 
prevent suljscription, is it not reasonable to inquire — 

Do NOT Partisan Bitterness and Intolerance resist the Ef- 
fort ? 

Did this Tract apply principles after this same fashion to the teachings and 
conduct of either party, the other would cheerfully provide am]-)le means. But 
if Democrats and Republicans be equally ignorant of the principles of their 
faith, as is suf)posed, and seems to be proved, both must be assailed. 

My studies of politics, however, would have been to little purpose, had they 
not tauuht charity for opponents. In this land of political as well as religious 
liberty, — not toleration, — every sort of opinion may be entertained and pro- 
mulgated ; and this sacred right being secured to every Citizen through the 
Federal Constitution, the advocate oi'even the revolutionizing heresy of National 
Sovereignly, must be decorously, i-espectfuUy treated,— and right here in Mas- 
sachusetts, — the same as if he were an honest believer in State Sovereignty, 
according to his oath. 

But it is the advocate not his dogma which is entitled to respect and courtesy. 
It may be a fine-sj)un distinction, yet being generally recognized, should be re- 
garded. And if the more eminent are entitled to courtesy in spite of mischiev- 
ous errors wherein they ought to know better, much more are common, unlearned 
men. And a fair examination exhibiting strangely contradictory opinions, even 
between the wisest and best, similar differences must be expected among those 
less informed. These differences cause party organizations, for the promotion 
of their respective means and measures, in which members become zealous ac- 
cording to their appreciation of the interests involved. This makes us all parti- 
sans ; and in times like these, is he a thinking, faithful Citizen who is not a 
partisan ? Not only are most of these Citizens honest as they are earnest in 
their political convictions, but in my judgment are partisans because they are 
patriots. On both sides they wish to know and to do what is right and best, and 
think party machinery the best way of effecting it; as no doubt it is, and indis- 
pensable to our free Governments. But is bitter antipathy and hate also indis- 
pensable ? 

Intolerance, either in politics or religion, keeps even pace with ignorance of 
])rinciples ; and knowing, as I do most positively, the profound ignorance of State 
Sovereignty in the North, of National Union in the South, it is perhaps too much 
to expect at present of either, an honest consideration of views ecpially opposed 
to both. 

But rancor between neighborhood politicians is far more bitter. Either Dem- 
ocrats or Rei)ublicans think the other worse enemies of our Union and our 
Governments than even extreme Secessionists, and far more inexcusable. And 
it would appear quite difficult to induce them to join hands in promoting an 
investigation which shall prove each equally wrong, and tear to tatters both their 
organizations, bringing forward new ones distinctly for or against Consolida- 
tion. Yet, ought not the feet, that extreme partisans on either side oppose these 
views, to commend them to true patriots of both ? That it is so difficult to in- 
duce Citizens of Massachusetts to even consider the subject, may not a further 
query be proper ? — 

Are not Partisanship and Intolerance extreme in Massachusetts ? 

It is also particularly unfortunate for the prosecution of my plans, that patriot- 
ism being very fervent in Massachusetts, party spirit is cjuite extreme. Experir 



20 The Pith of this flatter. 

enco had taiiirlit me something of ])artisan bitterness at home. But Chicago has 
little patriotism compared wttli Boston, if devotion to one party and intolerance 
of the other, he a true measure of fidelity. 

These good Citizens have much less toleration In politics than in religion. 
They nuist admit that Orthodox Churchmen have far more charity for their 
Heterodox brethren, as they conceive them to be, than have Republicans and 
Democrats foi- each other. "Brothers, ought these things so to be ? Has not re- 
ligious antipathy diminished with the increase of religious knowledge ? Would 
not a lik(! result be witnessed in regard to politics, were it cqiially made a study ? 

But, imfortunately, it is the most difficult of instrumentalities, to convince^ a 
person of the importance of truth concerning which he is totally ignorant. Not 
only arc we met by the proverb — 

Convince a man against his will, 
He 's of the same opinion still ; 

but he is to be made to understand that he needs to be convinced about a sub- 
ject concerning which he has not the slightest conception. And the difficulty aug- 
ments in the case of Massachusetts, in that her most learned statesmen and ju- 
rists having taught the country and the world what are believed to be the 
fundamental principles of our s^ystem, it is imagined that no important truth con- 
cerning it remains to be developed. Politics hereabouts is, therefore, preemi- 
nently the science in which is e.xhibited more of what Baxter styles prefidence of 
knowledge than any other. And although Massachusetts' friends will think it un- 
friendlv to say that none other more need the examination, yet is not reasona- 
ble evidence adduced for the affirmation ? If they be wrong concerning State 
Sovereignty, they are very wrong ; and does not this Tract prove it to some 
extent V 

Intolerance is bred by Ignorance. 

This important topic can have only a bare allusion. But it is well known 
that during the Dark Ages, and for the first century of the Reformation, relig- 
ious intolerance jirevailed throughout the civilized world, and that it has been 
relieved with the advance of knowledge in Theology and Relitrion. INIan's heart 
and intellect have been much employed in elucidating the religious truths of the 
Bible; and instead of one Church compelling all sorts of men to contbi'm to one 
Religion, — for the Greek Church had little strength, — we have increased evi- 
dence of the Divine origin of Christianity, in this division of Christ's Church into 
various sects ; which, while holding universally to the essentials of Theology, 
permit a variety in the non-essentials of Religion, suited to the immense variety 
of human character. 

So ought it to be in both the science and practice of Politics ; and so would it 
be with like enlightenment. But to the shame of the Christian world, even Avith 
the flood-light of Revealed Truth, we have made less attainments in the science 
of Politics, however it may be in our practice, than did the heathen world before 
Christ. And it is a fact, notwithstanding the vauntings of modern wisdom, that 
except the Bible, more can be learned of political science from Greece and 
Rome, than from all other sources combined. 

It is also noteworthy, that since the establishment of the Roman Em])ire, 
shortly before our Saviour's advent, the civilized world, equally with barbarians, 
has been almost wholly under one form of Government of State as well as 
Church. Except San Marino and other petty Republics, and those of Switzer- 
land and the Netherlands, which were or are mostly Aristocracies, — the meanest 
of the three forms of (Government, — the woi'ld has been ruled by Monarchy. 
Whether for the interest or not of IMonarchs to keep their subjects in ignorance, 
which Prussia certainly disproves, they have not ])romoted education. As the 
Bible was a sealed book, so was the science of Politics, except that here and 
there a wise man wi-ote for the instruction of rulers, as St. Thomas d' Aquinas, 
Bracton, Fortescue, Machiavelli, etc. ; and even Grotius' and Pufendorff 's works 
were composed mainly for that same class. 



Intolerance is bred hy Ignorance. 21 

These our rulers, too, want works written to enlighten them in the Government 
of the People; and wlien we contrast the severe persecution of Grotius for his 
Arminiaiiism, with the warm tViendship which Boston Trinitarians and Unitarians 
have for each other, it atlords nnicli ground to hope that political difterences will 
also be reconciled with a proper application to that science of the ]nMnciplesof the 
Bible. If great ditferences in Religion may not only be tolerated but fraternized, 
should they not be also in Politics ? Does Paul except the latter in teaching 
Charity 'i 

The Effects of Exlighiexment. 

A fair examination will exiiibit to every one of us too many beams in our own 
eyes, to make us very observant of either motes or beams in others ; and not 
only will it promote charity between these neighbors, but between these States 
and the various sections of our National Union. 

Nor will charity — love — be the only good resulting from a thorough study 
of Governmental [jrinciples. As Christian Citizens, they must be patriots ; as 
patriots, they will be partisans ; as partisans, they must have a keen eye upon 
both profit and power. And as notliing will tend equally to the promotion of 
either, as a thorough study into the principles underlying our compound system, 
these practical Citizens ought to be foremost in that imperative dutj'. 

The sagacious statesman will seek light, not for temporary objects of sectional 
or party aggrandizement, but to avail himself of these Providential events to lay 
broader and deeper the foundations of our institutions. The lladicals must re- 
lieve themselves of their horror of Secessionists, tor they will be found henceforth 
the strongest Union men in the country. It Avill not be the South that will next 
lead in ellbrts to destroy the Union, because of real or imaginary oppressions of 
the Federal Government. Is it not more probable that the antagonism between 
the manufacturing and agi'icultural intei-ests of the West and East, will be the 
next bone of cont(mtion ? Will not the West alone soon rule the Nation ? and 
■will not the South be with her when she wants aid in favor of free-ti'ade ? Will 
it be sound ])olicy to increase the vote against New England by complete en- 
franchisement of the Freedmen ? and if the (juestions ever again come to blows, 
will not the South with a will attest her loijaliij ? 

I allude to these things as a Western man in no threatening spirit, but simply 
to call the attention of my fellow-Citizens of Massachusetts to the practical 
character of the line of investigation ])roi)Osed for their consideration. Most as- 
suredly we cannot practice our compound system without thorough acquaintance 
with its principles. Tiie voters of the ruling sections, the West and South, must 
be well educated in the principles of j)olitical science, to administer affairs for 
the general good. The science of politics nuist be well apprehended to practice 
correctly the economy of politics. Especially do we need to be made to under- 
stand in all sections the strength of covenant obligations; not to guard against 
Secession, but to secure payment of the National debt. 

As we examine the misconceptions, deep and fundamental, and running back 
to the fathers themselves, we shall wonder that collision was so long avoided. 
Considering our own errors, we shall have charity for those of others ; and like 
brothers wdl we join hands to recionstruct our Union, with fervent thanksgivings 
to our God for saving us from the evils of disunion The important lesson will 
have been learned, th;it we must depend upon ourselves, not monarchial Europe, 
for enlightenment in tiie ])iinciples of our Governments. Both the infidel school 
of France, and the Whig school of Britain, have indoctrinated us with errors that 
but for God's mercy would have wrought our division and ruin. With the ex- 
tinction of slavery, and the ending of the war in conquest, new questions are in- 
volved retjuiring far moie knowledge of i)rinciples than at any previous stage of 
our history. Yet we have far less, in evidence of which we need nothing more than 
to consider the flat contradictions of [prevalent opinions, not only with element- 
ary truths of political science, init with common sense ; though, indeed, the for- 
mer ai'e only what the latter teaches. 



22 Tlie Pith of this Blatter, 

To have "-011111116 reconstruction, we must have a basis of mutual confidence 
and regard. While we beheve Southrons to be rebels and traitors, we cannot 
entertam for them these friendl)' sentiments. But the fact whether they be 
traitors and rebels, rests upon the'point whether the North be right as to National 
Sovereiinity. As long as we hold to that notion, the South can have no con- 
fidence in and regard for us ; but consider themselves mere victims of a power 
which an inscrutable Providence has permitted to revolutionize our Governmental 
system. Therefore, to ascertain and settle definitely this disputed question about 
the Sovereigntv, would seem to be the most practical solution of our difficulties. 
If we find the South are not rebels and traitors, but only misled by misconcep- 
tions of the obligations of compact, and the strength of National Union ; we 
should be willing at once to restore them to their lost places, when they see and 
acknowledge their error as to compact. And if they find that we are as true 
friends of State Rights as themselves, but have been misled by talse teachings, 
how lieartily will they welcome the knowledge, and rejoice in a mutual return 
to regard and confidence ! 

But the general benefits resulting from enlightenment, are too numerous, all- 
pervading, all-controlling to be here duly considered ; and coming down to the 
specific, let us look at the — 

Benefits to the Democracy. 

Northern Democrats claim to be, and honestly mean to be, the best friends 
of the misguided, unfortunate South. They hold that our Union is not broken, 
and that tiiis supreme National Government having subdued the rebellion, 
it could not have rights of con(juest, for a Sovereign can obtain no new rights 
over his subjects by subduing a rebellion — which is true ; — and recogniz- 
ing no principles higher than the Constitution to be applied to the case in hand, 
and by which even the Constitution itself must be construed, but imagining it 
stands on its own bottom, and nothing else, and is fully adecpiate tbi- any emer- 
gency ; of course the States that tried to secede but could not — not even by war 
— must at once be reinstated in tiieir Constitutional rights. 

The Constitution making no provision tor Secession, the States could not 
secede'; the Constitution gi\ ing no authority to concjuer States, but only to sub- 
due an insurrection or rebellion which wouhl be the act of individuals, the States 
cannot be coiupiered ; the Constitution providing that all the States shall have 
their etjual rights in the Union, they must always be entitled to them ; and for 
Congress to deprive the South of those rights, is fiagrant usurpation of the sov- 
ereign law of the land, the Constitution. What the States themselves could not 
do, neither by Secession nor by war, Congress aflirms to have been done. 

While Democrats deny that the States are out, they agree perfectly with the 
Radicals that they are rebels against the National Sovereignty. But, although 
the South would make many concessions to be reinstated in their former places, 
they will never admit themselves to have been rebels. If the Democracy expect 
toaliiliate with the South, and again rule the country, it must be upon their ground 
of State rights, not tiiat of rebellion. 

Then, too, have Democrats that confidence in the perpetuity of our institu- 
tions, which full faith in the People's Sovereignty would generate, and which 
they ought to have, and would have, if they well aj)prehended its principles V J3e- 
cause we are subjected for years — many years, — to evil rule — excessively 
evil, — should that endanger the entire fii'bric of our institutions ? Our system 
is not even in jeoparily, now that war is ended. Maladministration may entail 
incalculable evils ; but experience of the evils will in time work their own cure. 
Who snuffer V Are Deinurrats alone the victims ? 

Do not these pages aiibi-d some evidence that Democrats themselves can im- 
prove in their knowledge of Democracy ? How many do not hold with Repub- 
licans to the absurdity of Sovereignty in the Federal Government V With an 
error so gross as that pervading nearly the entire public mind, is it not probable 
that minor errors prevail to the injury of the working of our system, which may 



Benefits to the Republicans. 23 

also be corrected by a study of principles ? Is it unreasonable to suppose that 
while Democrats learn Democracy, Republicans may also learn Republicanism ? 
Take courage, brother Democrat, and do what you may to arouse to investiga- 
tion, the thing indispensable and all that is requisite ; not to save our institutions, 
for under God they will save themselves, and us with them ; but to alleviate 
misrule, and restore the love and harmony which Democrats so earnestly desire. 

Benefits to the Republicans. 

Republicans have made a large advance in the State-rights faith, and there- 
in have cjuite an advantage over Democrats, in recognizing the palpable truth 
that we have rights of conquest. With e(iual magnanimity and disinterested- 
ness with the Democracy, they seek to reinstate the South ; but being already 
in power, their object is to keep in. And fearing that Secessionists will be hos- 
tile to them, they endeavor to make voters of the Negroes, whom the)- imagine 
will favor the party which made them free. To raise lour millions of slaves at 
once not only to freedom, but to Citizenship, would be dangerous to any Gov- 
ernment, especially to a Federal Republic. Yetl have full faith that our system 
will endure that extreme measure, if it must be forced upon us. But my faith 
lies in the tractable, docile disposition of the Negro himself. The Radical, too, 
counts on this ; but will they be drawn contrary to the interest of tlieir States 
and section V Will they become so very intelligent and philanthropic as that ? 

Any one who knows much of the Negro character must expect the votes of 
freedmen will be cast with their late masters — with the aristocracy. Even to ex- 
clude Secessionists from the polls will make no difference ; and whichever party 
proves itself the best friends of the Secessionists, will get almost the entire 
Southern vote. Even a large part of those who opposed Secession, and were 
true to the Union through the Avar, will vote with the Secessionists, not only 
because the party will be so largely in the majority, but on account of their 
wisdom in proposing the wisest measures for the new order of things. The 
Secessionists were mostly the influential, best informed men, the experienced 
politicians, who, by their more thorough acquaintance with the science of pohtics, 
have hith(;rto ruled the Nation. The}' have made their mistakes, but we hope 
their misfortunes will teach them wisdom. They will adapt themselves to free- 
dom as they did to slavery, proving themselves, what they undoubtedly are, the 
best friends of the freedmen. They will devise wise measures ; and tlie Loyal- 
ists, as they are styled, as well as the Negroes, will support them. Therefore, 
whoever gets the southern vote, must be friends with the Secessionists. How- 
ever unpalatable the fact, if Republicans expect to keep the power, they must 
change their whole course in this respect. 

This they can easily do upon principle, and completely steal the march upon 
the Democracy, being already so much nearer the doctrine of State-rights, 
though sad perverters of their doctrine in Congressional practice. A little en- 
lightenment upon the cjuestion of rebellion, involving the admission that the 
northern heresy of National Sovereignty had misled them, would l)ring them 
upon the true ground of State-rights ; which, if they first reach, they will at- 
tach to them the South and may keep themselves in power indefinitely. 

Nor is this course one merely of expediency, but one of duty. The doctrine 
of State-rights is the genuine basis of our institutions, and must be recognized 
atid established in the hearts of our Citizens, unless our form of Government is 
revolutionized, and changed from Federal Republican Democracy into a Consoli- 
dated Aristocracy. Nothing of anuiesty should be tolerated; for if the South 
erred on the side of State-rights, and could not understand how free and inde- 
pendent States could be bound in National Union ; the North has erred quite 
as far in exalting the National Government to Sovereignty. A little enlighten- 
ment on both sides, and we shall be glad to cry quits as to the past, and South 
and North will unite their energies to repair the damages occasioned by ignor- 
ance of the fundamentals of our system. 

Reconstruction will be found to mean in the first place, the restoration to the 



24 Tlie Pith of this Matter. 

conquered States of their lost Sovereignty ; and then the renewal of the com- 
pact of Union upon its true principles. To accomplish these purposes, for which 
the Constitution makes no provision, these Sovereign States must come together 
in Convention by their Delegates; and having .first granted back to the eleven 
States their Sovereignty, they are then ready to renew the compact of Union 
as free and independent States. 

Whichever party, Democrats or Republicans, or whichever members of both, 
can soonest get upon and occupy the solid ground of State-rights, compelling 
their antaijonists to take that of Consolidation ; will obtain and hold the power 
so long aslhey shall faithfully administer the Government according to theprin- 
eiples of Federal Republican Democracy. 

The best Means of Exlightenment. 

Were light anxiously sought, of coui'se its direct presentation would be desir- 
able. But that is by no means the present case. The sole object at first is to 
convince these Citizens that they need light. And if probable that an examina- 
tion of our political teachings woidd in considerable measure promote the fore- 
croinc results, should it notbe tried ? Actual experiment in sui;h a matter is 
the onlv satisfactory test. But for Citizens to admit the reasonableness of the 
proposition, is to aihnit their ignorance of politics, in regard to which they have 
deemed themselves, and especially their teachers, proficients. This is also a 
subject, as before observed, concerning which prefidence of knowledge is ex- 
treme. 

Therefore, to issue a work applying principles of political science to our sys- 
tem, is not first needed ; and it will bear repetition, that nothing of the sort will 
be attempted in these Tracts. Incidentally, it is true, some principles are pre- 
sented which the Reader can receive or not, without affecting the argument, 
which is based upon the truth of our fundamental documents and insignia, as re- 
marked ill the Exjjlauatoiy. The prime object being to jirove that the Citizens 
want more light, and that the prevalent heresy of National Sovereignty is our 
chief evil ; wiiat could more effectually expose the inconsistencies flowing from 
that hyjiothesis, tlian to examine this argument of Mr. Loring's, the most com- 
plete and I'/liilosopliical that has been seen by me upon that side? But one 
tract, or one pen, is of small account in sucli measures ; and first of all I seek for 
grant co-laborers in this great work. If a few Tracts lead others to consider and 
lend their aid in untblding the doctrine of State Sovereignty, they will accomplish 
more good than more pretentious volumes. When you see any effort better cal- 
culated to jiernianently relieve our dilHculties, and establish our institutions, let 
these Tracts slide. Till then, give them circulation. 

Eesponsiiulity fou Success or Failure rests upon Massachu- 
setts. 

The subject is thus presented to fellow-Citizens of Massachusetts in some of 
its many aspects. The civility and kind interest almost universally manifested, 
may have made me over-sanguine ; and instead of reliance upon Boston alone, 
perhaps a more general proentation as alluded to, page 1 7, might have been 
more successful. But the present course having been chosen, the result will be 
accepted. If, after these months of consideration, Bostonians decide the at- 
tempt to be uiiwortliy of countenam^e, to look for aid elsewhere would be vain. 
The sum ri'tpiired lor a suitalile commencement will be to them a mere baga- 
telle, if they discern tlie merit which isimaoined. 

The (rharges preferred deeply concern every Citizen, being nothing less than 
that their own chief teachers are snbverting"tlie Constitution of this Common- 
vrealth. Hitherto both teacliers and taught could ])lead ii>iiorance in extenua- 
tion, no one having called attention to these erroneous teachings. And being 
now informed, if the charge be reasonalily substantiated, tliev would desire to 
correct either their teachings or tiieir Constitution. 

PerlLa])s the time has not yet arrived to prosecute the investigation, the Citi- 



Responsibility rests upon Massachusetts. 25 

zens not yet realizing its necessity. It may be that we ai-e to learn our men- 
dicity by the severity of misrule ; but sooner or later the reexamination into the 
principles of our Governments and Union will be prosecuted. When that time 
shall come, Massachusetts will be again on the lead, as usual. None will sooner 
discern misrule, none sooner seek to know the cause, and apply an adequate 
remedy. And who has ec^ual interest in asceitainiug whether the charge of er- 
rors concerning State Sovereignty be true ? and if true, who should be so ac- 
tive in their correction, as Massachusetts, their chief promulgator ? If her living 
and eminent statesmen and jurists have insufficient magnanimity to lead off in a 
correction vital to the institutions their fathers so lai'gely aided to establish, 
where will sufficient magnanimity be found '? If a little of the immense wealth 
here gathered, the product in large measure of our unequaled system of free 
Governments, cannot be bestowed in promotmg an investigation into its princi- 
ples, which is indispensable to its preservation and right practice, where else 
should one look for aid V Therefore, having at length, by the liberality of a 
few of her sons, and one in particular, been able to present the subject tor their 
consideration, it is with full confidence left to their determination, whether it shall 
be now prosecuted or postponed. 

My chief fear is that this attempt will prove wholly inadequate to the objects 
in view. Public sentiment has been so shocked with Southern depravity, and 
such strong language has been used in the expression of our 0[)inions, that we 
are likely to imagine any crime trivial unless it be characterized with Ijefitting 
terms. We hear so much about the necessity of '' making treason odious," that 
it will be thought I use it in a Pickwickian sense in applying the term to Massa- 
chtxsetts' teachings. This discussion may therefore appear trite, vapid, pusillani- 
mous. If so, I will endeavor to do better by and by. It is a subject that will 
warm up as we progress, tor it will be quite interesting to ascertain whether I 
am a traitor for believing in the truth of our fundamental documents, or he 
who in high or low office has the effrontery to swear that he will bear true faith 
and allegiance to his Commonwealth, when he fully believes in National Sov- 
ereignty. Have no lear that the discussion will lack spirit and interest. 

In no threatening animus, only with jjroper confidence in the rectitude of my 
intentions, and in the soundness of a judgment formed not only by hard study, 
but matuied by years of confiict ; the opportunity is taken to say to fellow-Citi- 
zens of the Bay State that, while it is left to their judgment to determine 
whether the examination shall now proceed, the ultimate determination, whether 
or not to test Massachusetts' teachings by principles of political science, will not, 
I trust, rest wholly with them. In that I shall hope to have a voice sooner or 
later; and the leisure hours and days of the period intermeiliate will be faith- 
fully devoted to further examination to enable me successfully to maintain my 
positions, that our fundamental documents and insignia are true and trustwor- 
thy, whoever may teach to the contrary. Nor shall I be left single-handed in 
the coming confiict ; for circumstances compel us to study into this disputed 
question of the Sovereignty, bringing me many coadjutors ; and believers in 
National Sovereignty will do well to prepare themselves to show when, where 
and how, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ceased to be free and independ- 
ent, and was subjected to Federal supremacy. 

Nor does duty to my native Commonwealth alone impel to the work. I am 
denounced as a traitor for believing in the motto of my adopted State, Illinois, 
which declares, " State Sovereignty, National Union." Traitors are they them- 
selves, for believing in National Sovereignty ; and I hear that the renegades 
have had the audatity to propose at the last session of our Legislature to change 
that motto. No four words in the English language express more than they, 
of the nature and genius of our institutions; and my endeavor will be to pre- 
vent an\- alteration, and prove my loyalty and the disloyalty of the innova- 
tors. 

But responsibility for even these errors of Illinoisans rests directly u[)on these 
teachers of Massachusetts ; and the East must be corrected to rectify the West. 



36 Tlie Pith of this Matter. 

All that is now desired of Massachusetts is to decide whether there be sufficient 
evidence of wronc in her teachings, to render it creditable to institute an in- 
quiry into their fruth and value. Will her sons assume the responsibility of 
indefinite i)ostponement, or honestly, candidly further this initiatory move- 
ment towards investigation, at the very first presentation of the charges against 

her V 

Mr. .Vinos A. Lawrence said in Ins letter. Tract I., page 32, — 

It is :i pity tliat so much hard labor as you have bestowed on tliis subject should 
be lost ; and therefore I shall be one of your subscribers in the publication. If 
your views are not like ours, there will bo writers enou^di to show to the public 
the other side ; and the more free the discussion the more certain we shall be of 
reaching the truth. 

Probably it will be found " a pity," should my judgment as to Massachusetts' 
errors be found correct, — " a pity " indeed, — that her Citizens should lack 
magnanimity to consider the views. This I do not fear ultimately ; and per- 
haps they are already willing to give these incijiient papers such a distribution 
as would e.Khibit the true spirit of the Commonwealth, and her desire to use 
every means to strengthen our National Union, by restoring that love and con- 
fidence which with true understanding of principles would never have been 
broken. I am not, however, seeking subscriptions for a copy or two, but for a 
hundred or two. 

Plan of Subscription. 

The difficulty in such, an undertaking is to have it rightly initiated. The 
fi-iends first consulted saw in the outset, that were the enterprise worthy of 
encouragement, it should have subscriptions from infiuential Citizens in such 
amounts as would bespeak their interest; and, as before observed, p. 13, 
they undertook to get twenty of $300 each to print the first volume. Though only 
two had actually subscribed, Messrs. Mudge and Ward, several others had prom- 
ised, and it is hoped they will change their subscriptions from the volume to the 
Tracts. 

The §6,000 will suffice to print the first three and distribute to the Editors, of 
■whom there are about 4,000 ; and though Chicago would do notliing before, I 
doubt not she will follow the example of Boston, and raise a like amount. That 
would distribute sufficient copies to the Clergy. Such a distribution would test 
the merits of the enterprise, which is all I desire. INly chances of remuneration 
will rest in the result. Is it not worth while to risk the little amount requisite 
to try this means of solving our difficulties V 

Sun-ly no such general subscription can be obtained in the outset, as that 
small sums will suffice. Only the few who rise above party, sincerely desiring 
to have their own party blunders and wrongs exposed and rectified, will aid in 
the beginning. Not only so, but only a few of them will give sufficient consid- 
eration to the subject to recognise the possibility that the chief statesmen. North 
and South, may have committed errors which further investigation may rectify. 
The project cannot be carried, nor will further effort be made, unless twenty or 
less of the leading Citizens of Boston will contribute for it, SC,000. 

Then others will subscribe for more or less copies to distribute among their 
friends, as proposed upon the cover, and Chicago will doubtless do as much as 
Boston. Except one half of the subscription, which is wanted to distribute this 
Tract to the Editors, the Boston subscriptions may be made contingent upon a 
like sum being raised in Chicago; for it is (juite as important to have funds to 
distrii)ute to the Clergy as to Editors. 

With the prestige of such a commencement, arrangements can then be made 
advantageously with enterprising publisliing houses to canvass the entire coun- 
try, and in each county induce leading Citizens to order twenty-five to one hun- 
dred copies, and awaken that general interest in tiie investigation which the 
subject undoubtedly merits, unless these six years of study have been worse 



Plan of Subscription. 27 

than wasted, and the assuming adviser deserve execration and contempt, instead 
of good wishes and solid benefactions. 

Nor will ultimate expectations be disappointed. The current of profits will 
run all tlie stronger with a i'^i^w years more damming up of errors — and dam- 
ning are tiiey, too. The time may not be yet, but the ultimate result is sure. 
The Radicals may prefer to continue experimenting in these momentous con- 
cerns, Avithout rule or compass, and subject us to evils of which they have no 
conception. But a few years more of experience will teach the dullest the ne- 
cessity oi" resorting to jn'inciples of political science. Democrats may fold their 
hands in despair, and wait for that ruin of our Governmental system which will 
not come. But both parties are composed in the main of honest, sensible, prac- 
tical Citizens, who will yet join their efforts to study anew the nature of our 
Governments, that they may well reconsti-uct our broken Union, and correctly 
practice the principles of Federal Republican Democracy. 

If not yet wanted, the views will be in demand a few years hence ; and 
meanwhile my efforts will be given to a long-projected business enterprise, in 
which success is sure as is the future of Chicago, which will give me funds to pub- 
lish. And a few years more of study, which the leisure from business will afibrd, 
will enable me more effectually to demonstrate the strength of National Union 
based upon State Sovereignty. 

Let us trust God and do our Duty. 

The more one studies political teachings, and sees the imperfections of human 
wisdom, the more satisfactiou has the thinking, earnest Jew or Christian, that 
" It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. x. 23 ) That there 
are difficulties in all knowledge, especially in that of Politics, is evident from the 
clashing opinions of wise and good men. But that renders it all the more im- 
portant that we should know certainly, and hold tenaciously, to the few elemen- 
tary truths which are settled and established. They are our polar star to lead us 
in the path of duty ; losing sight of which, we wander into error's mazes. 

Nor are we to be discouraged, although men will not hold to these truths, nor 
on account of the imperfections of all science. Because the world will not cor- 
rectly apprehend, duly practice, the truths of the Bible, is Religion, or its 
science. Theology, to be discarded ? ^Vhy, then, Politics, of whicli the Bible 
equally treats '? One who would neglect a subject of the importance of Politics 
because of imperfection, should study Ecclesiastes, the Book of all books most 
applicable to this science ; this chief of all sciences except Theology. 

The truth is, the scouter of Politics is the scouter of Jehovah, for It is the 
chief subject of the Old Testament, Its religious instruction pertaining almost 
entirely to the State ; and though doubtless a wonderful advance is in the Gospel 
Dispensation according to the preparedness of our race, that the truths are ap- 
plied to man individually ; yet it is that he may be a better member of the social 
state, — of tile family, and of the State, on earth; of the holy City or State of 
our Eternal King in Heaven. 

That our God deals with man In the threefold relation of the individual, the 
family, the State, Is not sufficiently apprehended. If we can realize our indi- 
vidual weakness, nothingness, entire dependence upon Infinite Wisdom for 
guidance — and whether realized or not, we all acknowledge the truth — how 
much more should we realize the hand of our God in affairs of State, that Is in 
Politics. (See § 8, this Tract.) Each man has his own Independent will to 
choose the good and refuse the evil ; and not only in seeking Religion, but Pol- 
itics, or any other essential good, he is commanded to his labor, and encouraged 
by this positive declaration : 

Work out TOUR OWN Salvation with fear and trembling : for it is God which 
worketli in 3'ou both to will and to do of His good pleasure. — [Pliil. ii. 12, 13.) 

What a motive to effort to him who has confidence in his God ! Even though 
there be no explanation of how he is free to work on his own account, and to 



28 The PltJt of this Matter. 

accoiii|tlisli Ills own .siilviitiiiii, uliilf Hi the hhiuc tiiin'. liis (l()i> works in liim to 
aucdiujilisli .liciitiVAH'ti )iiir|nisfH Coniu'tl trom clvrnily; it is i^unn^ijili t'.ir liim l,o 
know that Im lias <J<ti> H»r a (•(•-laboror in works jdannLul acconlin^; todou'w 
rules. U\ tlu'.n, nolwitlislamlih}^- man's individual indi'iicndcMicts lu' nuist slill 
1)0 dinu'U^d Irnni llnavfu ; liow nnicli niorc dofs lln^ Slalc, wiiicii is to he diwcU'd 
1>V a I'linjuncliiin of lliiisn iniciTlain, (^'rinn wills, wwd ^iiidanrc I'lnni Alioyo! 

Stall's III- Nations, too, Iml t(>r man's indixidual im|iiirli'('tions, would yiidd to 
this guidanl•l^ and luitiiliiUy n',i;ar<l llu-. lu'iu'i-pts and nun'i' intimations of tlu-ir 
J)ivini' Lcyislator. Tlmy oaniiot alloi'il to do otliL'i-wisiv 'i'lifri't'ori', ixu- po/)- 
itli ni.c Ih'i, is liti'.rally Iruo, and most uin|iluiti(ally so in Fri'n Slali'S or Com- 
iiKUiwi'altlis wliicli aro duvoid of tlio conuiitiny iiilhu'iiccs of tlin Court. 

Alan lifing |iossiissim1 of tins fomi)ouiid naluro of j»ood and i^'il, and existing' in 
tliisinlficatii tliu'iiliild ndationsliijiof tlio individual, tlic family, I lie Statu; it would 
liu ri'asonalilf to cxiu-fi of tlm Cruator of tliis wondi'it'ul mcclianism, wlioevi- 
duntly lions all tliiuj^s avconliny- to rnli', that Wv would ;:;ivt« man ruli^s to rugu- 
lato (lis conduct to liis (Jon and to liis fellow. Indeed, it would lio more 
um'casonaltlc to liclicvu tliat lio would not tlian lliat lie would direct those be- 
ings made in liis own image; especially al'ter the ehaiige in their nature, eon- 
beiiueiil U|ion their lieing made free moral agents instead of mere machines, and 
choosing to leliel against their Sovereign ; a change generating a depraved and 
vicious nature, rendering (iovernmeiil then indispcnsahle if not lietiue. Ac- 
cordingly, we have the code known as •> the l.aws of Nature and of Nature's 
Gou;" the liirmer being those revealeil in the Avorks of Nature, — and with 
such dislinclm-ss that even the licallun world is thereby rendered accountable 
tor the knowledge of Deity, e\cn to •■ His eternal power and Godhead;" (see 
lloiu. i.) — the latter, in the liible. This subject drew forth Hooker's sublinu^st 
strain ; but no language can with etpial beauty and precision describe the bit'orm 
code with the subdivision of llu' latter and chief part, as that of Israel's inspired 
King in the nineteenth I'salm ; the first [lart portraying " the Laws of Nature," 
the last " the Laws ot Nature's Gou." 

1^'ecisi^ly as man regards and obe)s those Laws, is he blessi'd and prospered 
in evi'iy relation ; or as he re^ists and conttnuns tlmm, is he condemned and 
punished. \\'liilc, however, the Stale or family is dmoid of man's moral imper- 
fection as ail individual ; and while the nature of eitht^r of the two lornu'r con- 
ditions woidd lead man to obey (J()i>'s laws faithfully ; y»'t individual man 
becomes or continues so ignorant ami erring, as well as corru[)t and depravt'd ; 
that In- even perverts the family and the Stale from their objects of ordination, 
both Uivine anil human. In .■>uch cases, too, as in that of Israel when they 
would have a King, it appears thai (ioi> will work no miracle to .save llicni, but 
lets them pursue their own course. 

SulVering as we are from civil war, that most terrible of God's .scourges, ami 
the record ol' Nations showivig none equal to this of ours, is it not the part of 
wisdom for each Citizen to im|uire why we are so chastised V Surelv we have 
made some tlas^ranl breach of •• the Laws of Nature and of Nature's CtOD " that 
we are thus atllictcd. 

This is no place to examine this imi>ortant subject, but candid consideration 
will show, that although slavery may be an important cause, the having the in- 
slitntion was not the otfcnce, but our neglect to take energetic measures ibr its 
exliiKtion. And responsibility tor this wrong rests very little uwre if anv upon 
the pro- than the anli-slavery advocate. Each section," every State, and nearly 
every individual Citizen, has had too incorrect conceptions oJ' Stale relations in 
our National Union, to promote proper action in the right way. Nor will slavery 
be t'omul our .sole ininnily, probably not the chief 

To iiiiiulre into the occasion of this severe ^mnishmenl, should be our first sub- 
ject of iuve.siigalion, tor Gou deals with families ami Nations only in this stage 
oi' existence. Without reformation we shall be further punished, tor » whou» 
the Lord lovoth he chastvmeth ;" and we have too abundant evidences of Divine 
tiivor to doubt our Father's love. The leading of Israel from Kgv[>l to Canaan 



Let us trust God and do our Duf^. 29 

was no luiirt' I'm\ idciilijil, lli.iii tlic rc;iriiiu from llic litllc liaiiilcis oC Jaincslowu 
and IMyinoiiili of lliis lui^lily l\c|(ul)lii', already s|)aiiiiiii;^ a coiitiiiciil, and 
now st)-ct(liin^ (roni tori'id to Iriuid /one. Nor were llie Hebrews in tlu-ii' Fed- 
ei'ul llepultlie any nioi't- nnder a Tlieoerac}' tlian are we. Did (lie Tlieocraey 
em! with Sanniel V All Nations are ecjiialiy nnder 'I'heoeracy ; and the inlinite 
Killer will e()ni])el tlieni to regard llis laws, wlietlier tliey ;ieknovvled;^c liini as 
their Kin^^ or not. It' you doubt it, read the first chapters of" Amos. 

'I'he love ol' our (ioD is abundantly nlanil'e^ted in fiivinjf us this viruin land 
possessed of such une([ualled variety (jf climate and jjroductions, with so litth; of 
injustice to the abori<;inal pi'oprit'tors, wIkj fijrfciLed tlusir i"ij;Iits by ni'};lc!ct to 
improves Natiu'c's bounties; that little injustice, as in the case of" the Cher(jkees, 
buinj; eonse(|uent upon oin- most heinous offence, ignorance of " the Laws of 
Nature and of Natnrii's God." 

Hut that love and directing care is even more strikingly manifested in the 
Colonial training an<l practice f)f Government, fitting us to use that same fljrm, 
with improvements adapted to the j)rogrcss of oiu' I'ace, which Infinite Wistlom 
de\iseil f()r His favoillt: I'eople of" old. Man's C^realor not only knows what 
foini of" (iovi'rnment is best f"or us, but unniistakaiilv lias advised us, as recorded 
in 1 Sam. viii. Not only so, liiit describing by the Prophet the glories of Israel's 
latter day, when her sins shall have been purged away, JtiiiovAii say.s — 

And I will restore thy Judges as at the first, 

And tliy (Counsellors as al tiie liegiiiiiing ; 

Afterward thou siiall be called 

'file City of Kigiiteousness, the faithful (!ily. — /.s. i. '20. 

Does the belic\cr ill Israel's (U)l>, whether Jew or Christian, need any 
stronger incentive than that to study into principles, and undersland the na- 
ture of the different forms of" (iovernment which God Himself leaches have 
such essential differences':' 

That the nature; and sti'i'iigth of our form is little apprehended, is evident from 
our having no conceptions of its power until it was tried to our own asloiiish- 
iiient and that of" the world. De 'J\)c(|ueville, the only one w ho has phihjso- 
phized uiion the subject, thought it would iail in war. iJut what has beitn the 
effect of our civil wai", and that the severest ever known '/ Has injt this war 
been of service in teaching Monarchs to respect Democracies, and diminishing 
the danger of foreign war 'f yiiould we not e.xainine and ascertain wherein its 
strength lies, to preserve it V 

But we not only have that form of (jlovcrniiicnt, which will kcitp us at peace 
with all the worhi as we go on to our destiny, that of " an ocean-bound Re- 
public ; " but the eepial of it, when riglitl}' undcu-stood and practiced, esj)(;cially 
in its Judiciary, was never devised for correcting tli(i wrongs of" mal-admiiiistrci^ 
tion, and preserving jicrfeet ])eac(! and satisfaction among ourselves. Nor has 
any otlu'i- been so well devised to accomplish the end of all Government — the 
elevation and ennoblement of the family and the individual. 

Do we need anymore evidi-ncc of Heaven's favor'/ Yet we have it, and 
perhaps most significantly of" all, in that the terrible judgment of civil war is 
made the instruini'iit of" ridding us of" slavery. Even we jiro-slavery mtin will 
have to admit that this luul bcn'ome to us a sin. Not to the States nor to the in- 
dividuals, but to the Nation ; inasmuch as we were doing nothing to rid our- 
selves of" this National evil; for the introdiiclion of which, under "the Laws of 
Nature and of" Nature's God," neither States nor Colonit^s were responsible. 

Surely our God loves us, and surely will He further chastise us unless we 
learn wherein we have offended, and re[)ent with deep contrition. To ascertain 
our wrong, we need to study anew " the Laws of Nature, and ot" Nature's dou," 
and ascertain our duty under tluiin to GoD and to each other. Of these we are 
now so lamentably ignorant, that f"ew in the North have correct conceptions of 
even the Sovert-ignty of the State, that Divine principle which und(!r the Sov- 
ereignty of Heaven generates our every civil right, and governs in this life all 
man's relations to his fellow, as an individual, a family, a State. And the South 



80 Tfie Pith of this Matter. 

are as i<>norant coiiccniiii^' I lie nature and strongtli of covonant ; tliat sacred Jigi- 
ment (mlained of Gon as tlie fliicl" band of all human or Divine institutions. 
Is it any wonder that wo "ot into eivil war V Ou\y by (ioD's <;oodness, over- 
ruling; Diu- niisconceptions, were we so ionn; kept out of that ealaniity. 

BiM tliis work of invesliiiation is one in which the Slate is powerless. Each 
Citizen must lor himself examine " the l^aws of Nature and of Nature's GoD," 
and tlie code of International Law therefrom deduced, to ascertain " whether 
these thin;>s be so." And if we are resolved not oidy to know but to do our 
duty in these various relations of life, we have ample encouragement in our 
Saviour's j)romise, that — 

If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
Goi), or whether I speak of myself. — John vii. 17. 

Such, Fellow-Citizens, are the considerations gradually ac(piired with the 
examiiuition ; and with steadily augmenting interest, mullipiying powei'. En- 
jovment of the studies, which has been intense, may have warpi-d judgment; 
bnt with these realities in view, Avould you not have still pursued tiiem, desi)ite 
intervening obstacles '? It lias more and more astonished me, that a line of inves- 
tigation, so simple and natural that every investigator must fall upon it, should 
not have been discovered by hundreds of others. Perhaps it has been, and that 
their more discreet judgment withheld the intbrmation, as being too unimj)ortant 
and conmion-place to lay before th(i j)ublic. If so, my idiosyncrasy will soon be 
ascertained, and this little pebble, without a ripple to mark its submersion, will 
sink into oblivion. 

That residt is not expected, or this publication would not have aj)peared ; and 
most certainly the disagreeable task ot seeking aid to ])ublish, would have been 
saved. Though the few who have contributed — and j)articidarly the generous 
friend who came to the rescue; when expectation of piuisent ])id)lieation had been 
abandoned, antl who tbrbids his name to be given — have almost made me feel 
that it was blessed to receive as well as to give ; yet had not pul)lic interest gov- 
erned, and private interest stimulalcil to still a littli- mon^ effort, this Tract 
would not now have apj)eared. 

Some sincere friends, as widl as di^spicable pretenders, have pointedly mani- 
fested their earnest belief that I was anywhere else than in the path of duty, 
either to myself, to my family, to my country, — State they know nothing about, 
— or to my God. This opportunity is therefore taken to shew some of the 
actuating motives which havt- kept me at this work year afttu' year against their 
urgent remonstrances. They will yet acknowledge', that regarding obligations to 
my Guu and country, or to my family and self, and with pro))er trust in God, I 
must have done as 1 have, or j)roved recreant to higliest duty. Though con- 
stantly pinched ibr means, and owing several little sums that I would have done 
any thing that ofl'ered to pay, 1 have clung to this, not only for the above con- 
siderations, but also as the surest and (juickest means of making a little money, 
if not a good deal. Nor will this prove a mistake, iiidess the good sense and 
practical character of Fellow-Citizt'ns are entirely misjudged. As before ob- 
served, delay is jmssible, if not probai)le ; but the time comes by and by when 
these years of labor will be amply reuuuicratcd. 

With this publication the Author's duty ends temporarily, and the Reader's 
begins. If wrong, 1 am very wrong, and upon the most vital cpiestion of the State 
and iXation ; and that Citizen who is not positive and energetic in putting me 
down, neglects his duty. If right in the main, it is beyond a (piestion the most 
important field of research that can be opened to view. Is not Uc an apostate 
to God and country, false to family and self, who can be neutral and indilferent 
about such an examination V 

To liave a comi)lete understanding with the Reader, let me say in conclusion, 
that 1 intend to follow up this subject ; and in part, in order to secure my elec- 
tion as a Delegate at large from Illinois to the Constitutional Convention, "where- 
in the lost Sovereignty will be restored to the compiered States, and our Union 
be reconstructeil. Furtlu'r than that I have no political aspirations ; and if 



Let us trust God and do our Duty. 31 

my Prairie Farmer friends shall deem me qualified, they will see that I am not 
disappointed. 

Instead of office-seeking, my leisure from business will be spent more agree- 
ably to myself and profitably to the public, in gathering a library devoted chiefly 
to the science and art of politics. To obtain means tor this, and to thoroughly 
educate my sons tor public or private life, and to publish \\\y views of our Gov- 
ernments, and to get that indefinite thing, a small competency ; my energies will 
be given to the acquisition of another estate in the realty of Chicago, which will 
not again slip through my fingers by engaging in other things. Having an ex- 
cellent charter from our Legislature, and large experience, success is sure, with 
life and health. Therefore do I expect soon to be able to publish indepen- 
dently ; thougii I hope Boston and Chicago fi'iends will judge it expedient to help 
to immediate publication. It will be a safe and profitable investment, aiding by 
a thorough knowledge of principles to continue estates to children and children's 
children tor generations, if they prove worthy sons of their fathers ; and if not, 
property should go to others. To render secure to posterity the rich legacy 
bequeathed in trust to us; to render permanent this Heaven-sanctioned system 
of Government, we must undei-stand the nature of National Union based 
upon State Sovereignty. 

Boston, May, 18G7. 




POLITICS, IF A SCIENCE, NEEDS REINVESTIGATION. 

STUDY PRINCIPLES, SCRUTINIZE PREMISES. 

POLITICAL TRACTS. 

No. 2. 



" The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province'of Massachirsetfs Bay, 
do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to join themselves into a free, sov- 
ereign, and independent body politic or State, by the name of Thk Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts." — Constitution. 

Illinois to Massachusetts, Greeting! 





Judge not, that ye be not judged. For witli what judgment ye judge, ye shall be 
judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why 
beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is 
in thine own ej-eV Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of 
thine eye; and, behold! a beam is in thine own ej'e? Thou Iwpocrite, first cast out the 
beam out of thine own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of 
thy brother's e^'e. — Matt. viii. 1-5. 



REPLY 



Hon. CHARLES G. LORING, 



RECONSTRUCTION." 



JOHN S. WEIGHT, 



OF ILLINOIS. 



These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word in all lowUness of 
mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. — Acts xvii. 11. 



SOLD BY 

A. WILLIAMS AND COMPANY, BOSTON; 
AND J. R. WALSH, CHICAGO. 

1867. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by 

John S. Wright, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 



RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE: 

STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY 

H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

DEDICATION vii 

PURPOSK OF THE DEDICATION vii 

We must Honor the Fathers . viii 

We must Honor our God viii 

Blunders of Political Parties, 1864 ....... viii 

Massachusetts Repudiates her Constitution .... ix 

Illinois defaces her Escutcheon ....... ix 

Illinois and Massachusetts must Stand hy the Fathers . . ix 

Illinois and Massachusetts do Stand by the Fathers . . . x 

This is the Time to Determine our Course .... x 

To Examine independently Massachusetts Teachings and 

Teachers is a proper Beginning ..... xi 

Sons abroad look to their Mother-Commonwealth . . . xii 

EXPLANATORY xiii 

REPLY TO MR. LORING 1 

§ 1. The Subject presented — its Importance 1 

§ 2. Premises must be sound 5 

§ 3. Is Knowledge in Politics reduced to a Science? ... 8 
§ 4. Our Fundamental Documents and Insignia are true and 

trustworthy .......... 12 

§ 5.. State Sovereignty the chief Occasion of Difference . . 14 

§ 6. Correct Definitions of Words essential .... 15 

§ 7. Mr. Loring's Definition of State includes a Confederacy 

of States 17 

§ 8. A TRUE Definition of State 18 

§ 9. Sovereignty' defined — its Nature and Exercise' . . .21 

§ 10. pufendorf upon sovereignty 23 

§ 11. PUFENDORF UPON THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF StATES ... 26 

§ 12. Pufendorf concerning a Federal Republic .... 27 
§ 13. Of Voting equally' or according to Strength. — Of Binding 

THE Minority' . . 31 

§ 14. Other Subjects treated by Pufendorf 34 

§ 15. With these Premises, what shall be our Conclusion? . . 35 

§ 16. Which had Preexistence — the States or Union? . . 40 

§ 17. Mr. Loring upon the Sovereignty' of Massachusetts . . 45 

§ 18. Nationality and Sovereignty- of the United States . . 47 
§ 19. U. S. Sovereignty under the First Constitution, or Articles 

of Confederation ......... 51 

§ 20. U. S. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution . . 54 

§ 21. Other Points of Difficulty in Mr. Loring's Argument . . 61 

§ 22. Mr. Loring's Conclusions diverge from his Premises . . 62 



§ 


'23 


§ 


24. 


§ 


25 


§ 


26 


§ 


27 


§ 


28 


§ 


29 


§ 


30 


§ 


31 



yi Contents. 

PAGE 

Mr. Loring's Nation conquers itself 63 

Would subduing a Rebellion give Rights of Conquest ? . 68 

Mr. Loring weakens our Rights of Conquest .... 84 
Only By Virtue of State Sovereignty have we acquired 

Rights of Conquest 88 

What will Mr. Loring Reconstruct 1 93 

Dividing Sovereignty misleads Mr. Loring .... 97 

Another Difficulty, confounding States and State Govern- 
ments ............ 99 

Paradoxical Writers mislead Mr. Loring .... 106 

Mr. Loring intimates the true Means of Relief, a Resort 

to Principles Ill 

§ 32. The Grotian School supplies the Union that we want . 116 
§ 33. A Theory op a Federal Republic would strengthen Mr. 

Loring's Nation 118 

§ 34. Mr. Loring denies the Possibility of our being a Federal 

Republic 121 

§ 35. Mr. Loring consistently affirms Consolidation from the 

Beginning 122 

§ 36. The Constitution did not ch.^nge the Nature of our Union 124 
§ 37. Mr. Loring's Nation has no Power, all Powers of the United 
States being specifically vested in coordinate Depart- 
ments 131 

§ 38. Mr. Loring, notwithstanding, makes the Federal Govern- 
ment a Unit with Sovereign Powers ..... 137 
§ 39. Mr. Loring makes Congress the Supreme Government . . 156 
§ 40. Mr. Loring's Difficulties are less than others' . . . 173 
§ 41. The one Issue is distinctly Federalism or Consolidation . 174 
§ 42. My Object is less to criticise than to promote Examination 180 
§ 43. These same Principles must be applied to the Correction 

of Southern Errors 188 



Ct^ The small figures within the brackets, indicate Mr. Loring's page; those 
without, my own page. 



ERRATUM. 
Note 2, p. 18, should change places with note 1, p. 19. 



, TO THE 

FIRM SUPPORTER OF THE ESCUTCHEON OF ILLrNOIS, 

MY ADOPTED STATE; 

TO THE FAITHFUL DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

MY NATIVE STATE; 

TO EACH SON, NATIVE OR ADOPTED, WHO IS OR DESIRES TO BE A TRUE 

FEDERAL REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT, 

/ DEDIC.l TE THIS LITTLE WORK, 
Trusting it may aid his Efforts to promote a Spirit of Inquiry into " The Laws 
of Nature and of Nature's God," enabling us to appreciate the Perfection 
and Strength of NATIONAL UNION based upon STATE SOVER- 
EIGNTY; — that Sovereignty which the School of Massachusetts makes 
a Delusion and Figment, that Union which the School of South Carolina 
makes a Rope of Sand ; • — giving Solidity and Permanence to National 
Union, the Ark of our Safety, by increasing an intelligent, filial Devo- 
tion to 

THE QUEENLY MOTHERS, OUR RESPECTIVE COMMONWEALTHS, 

WHOSE 

SOVEREIGNTY, HONOR, AND GLORY, ALL TRUE AND FAITHFUL SONS WILL TO THE 

DEATH DEFEND. 



Purpose of the Dedication. 



Although by removal from Berkshire's valleys and mountains to 

These . . . the gardens of the desert, these 
The unshorn fields, boundless and beautiful. 
For which the speech of England has no name — 
The Prairies, — 

" unshorn fields " no longer, never more " gardens of the desert ; " — although 
by removing my home, my allegiance is transferred trom the Sovereignty of 
Massachusetts to that of Illinois ; yet, by the blessing of Providence and the 
wisdom of the fathers, I have not become an alien to the Commonwealth of my 
nativity. Still under the tegis of E Plurilms Unum, created by the joint will of 
the original Sovereignties, and sanctioned by the new parties to the compact ; 
as a Citizen of Illinois, I am entitled to every privilege of fellow-Citizenship in 
the far-distant State of Massachusetts. 

To aid in perpetuating this inestimable benefit, to preserve National Union by 
keeping intact State Sovereignty, these pages have been written and are dedi- 
cated to brothers in the East and in the West, and those scattered throughout 
the Union. Each will second as best he may every honest effort to promote in- 
quiry into the nature of our Governments and Union ; a means indispensable 
to a due appreciation and correct practice of our system, and causing thousands 
who now wander after the ignus fatuus of National Sovereignty, to follow the true 
and steady light of State Sovereignty, joining our ranks and returning to the 
faith of the fathers, to the practice of true Federal Republican Democracy. 



viii The Dedication — Its Motives and Objects. 



We must Honor the Fathers. 

In this land of freedom, affording the brightest example of Free States, of 
Commonwealths, upon which the refulgent rays of the sun of liberty were ever 
shed, should every Citizen be a Democrat — a believer in the Sovereignty of the 
People ; a Republican Democrat, — believing that the Sovereignty is best exer- 
cised by Eepresentatives ; a Federal Republican Democrat, — believing State 
Sovereignty can most effectually be preserved in National Union of Free and 
Independent States, by Federal league or compact. 

As such, he would honor our fathers, who with skill so wonderful divided up 
the exercise of Sovereignty to subordinate Agencies, State and Federal, with 
four subdivisions in each ; creating in these eight Departments, each indepen- 
dent of the others for its specified purposes, not only the most perfect system of 
checks and balances against oppression of every form, but at the same time ob- 
taining stronger safeguards against the usurpation of the People's Sovereignty by 
the few or by the one, than had before been devised. 

An exalted privilege we thus enjoy, to honor our illustrious parentage ; an 
array of intelligence, wisdom, integrity, patriotism, — of superiority in every at- 
tribute of manhood in its best estate, — not excelled by any family of our race. 
Their fame will increase, their glory brighten, with the advance of knowledge 
of the essential diversities of Governments, and until all forms of earthly rule 
shall cease, whether we their sons, gi-andsons, and great-grandsons, have the 
folly to destroy or the wisdom to preserve their rich legacy of freedom ; this 
compound, yet not complex system of Federal Republican Democracy. 

We must Honor our God. 

Exalted, however, as is this privilege, we may enjoy one still loftier, that in 
honoring our fathers we honor our God, who, by His Providences, led those 
■wise men on step by step, and apparently without their knowledge, to adopt that 
system of Government Infinite W^isdom devised for favored Israel, and which 
in folly and wickedness they deserted — as also may we — when they said, — 

Nay, but we will have a king over us ; that we also may bt like all the Nations : and that our king 
may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. — 1 Sam. viii. 19, 20, 

— that form which is known in modern political science, as Federal Republican 
Democracy. 

Blunders of Political Parties, 1864. 
Surely might it be expected that every Citizen of all these States would be a 
Federal Republican Democrat. Yet far otherwise is the fact, unless I misappre- 
hend the platforms in the Presidential contest of 1864. Of the States partici- 
pating in that election, all but three, and several by large majorities, voted directly 
against State Sovereign t}-. This F hope to substantiate elsewhere, and here merely 
inquiie, if Rci)ublicans liad proper conce])tion of Republicanism, could they have 
required of the " Rebels " — as the Confederates were styled in the second res- 
olution of their platform — that they should " return to their just allegiance to 
the Comtitution and Laws of the United States ? " Because a Free State estab- 
lishes laws and a Constitution to govern its liege subjects, is the Sovereignty, 
the Eight of Conmiand, thereby transferred from the People to their Govern- 



The Dedication — Its Motives and Objects. ix 

mental edicts, or to their officials ? If not transferred in the State Government, 
why in the Federal ? 

Notwithstandinu this blunder of the Republicans, which ought to have been 
fatal even without their dissensions, the Democracy were too much imbued with 
the same iieresy of National Sovereignty, to avail themselves of their advantage. 
Else, why the total silence upon this vital point, which, if true, wholly revolu- 
tionized our system of Free Governments ? for silent were they, not only in the 
Chicago platform, but in the campaign discussion. 

Instead of being on the aggressive, as the Democracy might and should have 
been with the least knowledge of Democratic principles, and with an easy march 
to victory ; they were most disgracefully put and kept on the defensive, busily 
engaged in proving their own loyalty I Loyalty to whom ? Why, to the Fed- 
eral Government, which, if there be any truth in the Democratic faith, is nothing 
but the mere Agency of the Sovereign States. 

If Democrats are to maintain Democracy, Republicans Republicanism, and 
Unionists Federalism instead of Consolidation, need we not on all sides to study 
anew the principles of Federal Republican Democracy ? 

Massachusetts Repudiates her Constitution. 

In Massachusetts, one hundred and six thousand Freemen, on the 8th Novem- 
ber, 1864, in eilect actually endorsed the declarations of their renegades, that 
the Constitutional comjiact, whereby we enjoy our high privileges of fellow-Cit- 
izenship in tiiis our National Union, is " a league with hell, and a covenant with 
death." Not in eilect, but positively they declared that the Constitution of that 
Commonwealth, recently reaffirmed by the rejection of its proposed substitute, 
is a lie ; Massachusetts not being sovereign, free and independent, but suliject 
herself to Federal supremacy, and the allegiance of her Citizens and subjects 
bein<i: not due to her, but to the Federal Government. They deserted the faith 
of the fathers, the principles of Federal Republican Democracy. 

Illinois Defaces her Escutcheon. 

Then, in Illinois, one hundi-ed and eighty-six thousand Citizens declared pos- 
itively that their shield bears " a flaunting lie." In effect they affirmed Stale 
Sovereignty to be the " pestilent heresy " which has wrought the ruin of National 
Union., and brought us into civil war. They stultified themselves in contradict- 
ing the motto of our State, in ignorance of the plain and fundamental truths 
which underhe Federal Republican Democracy. 

Illinois and Massachusetts must Stand by the Fathers. 

Every true son of Illinois must support her Escutcheon. Every true son of 
Massachusetts must stand by her Constitution. They who will not, are cowardly 
recreants, infamous apostates, atrocious traitors. That we know which of us are 
traitors, apostates, recreants, which faithful liege subjects, is of high moment to 
the honor and morals of these Citizens. 

Therefore, while every Citizen of the Republic from ocean to ocean has a 
deep and abiding interest in the maintenance of our institutions as they exist ; 
in the honor of our fathers who fashioned them, of our God who directed them ; 
yet the duty and honor of the sons of Massachusetts and of Illinois, are peculiarly 
involved. They must preserve the faith of the fathers, perpetuate our system 
of Federal Republican Democracy. 



The Dedication — Its Motives and Objects. 



Illinois and Massachusetts do Stand by the Fathers. 

If these Sovereign States have advisedly decided as those votes of 1864 indi- 
cate, that allegiance is and shall be due to the Federal Government, we can no 
longer be Federal Republican Dei/iocrats ; no longer maintain the faith and 
practice of the fathers, without becoming traitors. 

Thank God the native State in 1853 stood by the Constitution of the fathers, 
thouo-h by a very meagre majority ; but it is noteworthy, that of the many at- 
tempted innovations, they dared not to change the old declaration, that Massa- 
chusetts is sovereign, free and independent. 

My adopted State, too, though the Constitution was changed in 1847, touched 
not its shield ; nor did the Convention of 1862, although the subject was mooted. 
These circumstances afford evidence that the votes of 1864 were not consider- 
ately cast, and that Citizens of Illinois may yet preserve their motto. Citizens 
of Massachusetts their Constitution, and not be traitors. 

Yet, is such vacillation, contradiction of opinions, in regard to the very soul 
of the State, the source of authority, the Right of Command, the Sovereignty, 
compatible with judicious practice, and with permanence ? Citizens ! let us 
promote inquiry into the nature of our Governments, and know how to preserve 
our shield and Constitution ; how to defend the faith and honor of the fathers ; 
how to maintain and establish, firmer than ever. Federal. Republican Democ- 
racy. 

This is the time to Determine our Course. 

Now, midway of Presidential contests, is a favorable time to study principles, 
rendering the next campaign memorable even in these eventful times. Should 
not these pi-actical Citizens avail themselves of the occasion to examine anew 
the nature of our Governments and Union V The question of the day is as to 
the rights of these States and of the National Government. N^eed we not to 
know whether the Citizens of the seceded States are actually rebels against the 
National Sovereignty ? whether our rights of conquest have accrued to a Sover- 
eign National Government, or to these States ? Is our pathway clear, are 
our rights and duties well defined, as to Reconstruction ? 

Far more than in 1800, is it expedient now to join issue upon the question of 
maintaining National Union upon the basis of State Sovereignty ; and those ob- 
taining the affirmative, making it the main plank of their platform, compelling 
opponents to take the opposite one of National Sovereignty, deserve to have, 
and will have, a grand triumph. Adherents will not come from any one party 
or section. With true patriots of the South and of the North this issue will ob- 
literate past differences, uniting the large majority of all parties as one man 
against Consolidation. 

Nor should any other issue than this be made, until this shall have been de- 
cided. It is a dispute that has come down to us frona the fathers, and entered 
largely into the late contest of arms, which settles no principles, only decides as 
to facts. Once for all should it now be determined, whether we shall be a Fed- 
eral Republic of Free and Independent States, or a Consohdated Republic 
under one National Sovereignty. " There can be no neutrals in this war ; " 
and wiping out old Issues, let us compel virulent Disunionists in the South, 
traitorous Consolidlsts In the North, to show their true (;olors. With vigorous 
determination let us return to the faith of the fathers, preserving our institu- 



The Dedication — Its Motives and Objects. xi 

tions according to the form, spirit, and method of Federal Republican Democ- 
racy. 

To Examine independently the Teachings and Teachers of Mas- 
sachusetts IS A proper Beginning. 

To consider the proposition, " Politics, if a Science, needs Reinvestigation," 
somebody's writings must be examined, in order to ascertain whether there be 
imperfection of knowledge, and misapplication of principles of political science, 
sufficient to render the supposed duty incumbent. A son of Massachusetts, 
having that merited confidence in his Mother-Commonwealth which every true 
son would cherish, would prefer to begin with her teachings, that if errors exist 
therein he could not be accused of prejudging others, or of attempting to cast 
motes out of others' eyes, with beams in his own. 

But it happens that the main point in controversy is concerning State Sov- 
ereignty ; and that the chief subverters of State Sovereignty are sons of this 
very Commonwealth, and her most eminent statesmen and jurists. Therefore, 
no fair criticism of any son, however distinguished or honored, would be rejected 
by one who had due confidence in his State and in the truth. Should injustice 
be done the living, the stalwart knights assailed can and will speedily make it 
apparent, to the disgrace of the assailant. They can easily demonstrate whether 
the assuming critic be not himself the blunderer. Wielding sharp pens to cut 
deep upon emergency, they could, with the feather-end, brush away any cobweb 
covering attempted to be spread over their masterly works. And especially if 
tlie honored dead be misinterpreted, traduced or villified ; scores of gallant de- 
fenders will rush to the assault, sustained by deepest public sympathy. 

But in an examination like this, individuals, however eminent, are not to be 
weighed against the cause. The State itself is assailed, even its very Sover- 
eignty denied; that Sovereignty which to every Citizen-son of his Mother- 
Commonwealth, ought to be as unquestionable as the virtue of his own mother. 
Even had Massachusetts never proclaimed so unmistakably her Sovereignty, it 
ought to be undeniable. Yet teachings abound, which flatly contradict her own 
positive declarations. These denials never wrote themselves ; and the loftier the 
genius, the weightier the character, employed in traducing, corrupting, villifying 
the Sovereignty of his own, his native Commonwealth, — a Sovereignty as illus- 
trious, omnipotent, imprescriptible, as ever operated under imperial diadem, — 
the deeper sink author and works in the pit of infamy. 

The influence of Massachusetts in the main has been too wide, too deep, too 
pure, too holy, to fear any scrutiny. That imperfections should exist, is the lot 
of all things human ; and to remove them should be our united object, in order 
to strengthen the health and power of her teachings. So that although the 
writings of her Loring and Motley, her Curtis and Parker, her Everett and 
Webster, her Story and Dane, must come under revision ; I shall have the earn- 
est wishes of their every true friend that the truth may be evolved, and that 
whatever mistakes they have made may be rectified ; and the more earnest 
according to acquaintance with the subject, and confidence in our authorities 
who have given us so much more wisdom to follow, than error to shun. But 
however that may be, if these eminent sons be wrong, do we desire that correc- 
tion should come from abroad ? Is not this the work we should of all things 
seek to do ourselves ? Should any son be regarded an interloper in this holy 
undertaking ? 



xii TJie Dedication — Its Motives and Objects. 

Inasmuch as modern teachings are in positive conflict with the Constitution of 
Massachusetts, it stands to reason, that if the fathers had that wisdom which 
with pride we ascribe to them, they must have possessed knowledge of political 
science of which the sons have become ignorant. To that knowledge must we 
attain, and we ought to go beyond, and even imperfect efforts tending thereto, 
should be welcomed and furthered ; for we earnestly desire to become successful 
defenders of the faith and practice of the fathers, of the principles of Federal 
Republican Democracy. 

Sons abroad Look to thkir Mother-Commonwealth. 

Those who with myself are wanderers from our native State, are specially 
remembered in the Dedication. More than sons at home can we appreciate the 
priceless benefits of our compound system, which still preserves to us, though 
liege subjects of other States, fellow-Citizenship in Massachusetts. 

And with deepest sympathy, warmest atfection, are those unfortunate brothers 
included, who, by the 'Secession of their States, and by the more effectual an- 
nulment of the Federal compact by war, ceased to be fellow-Citizens of our 
National Union, and under the laws of War, and by the rights of conquest, 
are now held as mere subjects of these Sovereign States which remained faith- 
ful to the sacred compact of National Union. 

While investigation will exhibit the folly and wickedness of Secession, it will 
also exhibit the wickedness and folly of exalting the Federal Agency to the 
throne of Sovereignty. We shall see more and more clearly that our difficulties 
were brought about by the wrong teachings of both the leading schools of South 
Carolina and of Massachusetts ; and with profound interest will the scattered 
sons, especially those of the seceded States, watch the course of the Mother- 
Commonwealth in remedying the errors her sons have taught. Chivalrous ac- 
knowledgment of their own wrongs in perverting the authoritative declarations 
of the State herself, generous forgetfulness of the past, earnest desire at the ear- 
liest period possible with safety to restore the subject Citizens and States to equal 
rights in our National Union, wise Statesmanship in effecting these objects ; are 
preeminently and confidently looked for in Massachusetts by every worthy son. 

This occasion of centuries to attach to herself by still stronger cords of inter- 
est and affection her sons in all these States, will be effectively employed. 
Dwindling as is her voting power in the National councils, she will rejuvenate 
her strength by her strong hold upon strong hearts in all these States, rendering 
us in effect a Nation of Fellow-Citizens, as we are in fact a Nation of Sovereign 
States. And now, with the annihilation of slavery, the chief occasion of dis- 
agreement, another dangerous element is taken away in the single division of 
our country into North and South. Breaking us up into various sections, each 
having its specific interests, — New England, Middle Eastern, South Eastern, 
Gulf States, Central West, North West, South West, Montane and Pacific 
States, — each section, each State, must henceforth seek its own best good in 
the general good of " an ocean-bcund Republic." 

.Massachusetts will not fail in this her golden opportunity to fulfil our highest 
expectations. Influential as she has been in moulding and establishing our 
Union and Governments, she will be no less so in their preservation ; continuing 
to far distant generations, and with strength increasing with our knowledge and 
our years, this Heaven-devised, unequaled system of Federal Republican 
Democracy. 



EXPLANATORY. 



Go not forth hastily to strive, 
Lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, 
When thy neighbor hath put thee to shame. 
Debate thy cause witli thy neighbor himsejf ; 
And discover not a secret to another ; 
Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, 
And tliine infamy turn not away. — Prov. xxv. 8-10. 

Coming all the way from Illinois to Massachusetts, and en- 
gaging in controversy with Mr. Loring, some might say that 
another passage of Solomon's is more appropriate, which Stuart 
thus renders : — 

As one who graspeth hold on a dog's ears : 

So is he who, passing along, rusheth into strife which belongeth not to him. 

Prov. xxvi. 17. 

But this strife, belongeth it not to me ? As an heir " to the 
manor born," what can affect the good name, usefulness and 
glory of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in which I may 
not participate equally with any other son, however distin- 
guished ? And though by removal a third of a century ago to 
what was then the far West, my allegiance has been transferred 
from the State of my nativity, to Illinois, the State of my adop- 
tion ; still am I, by the grace of God, and the wisdom of the 
fathers, with Mr. Loring, and every other son of our beloved 
Commonwealth, and of all these Commonwealths, a fellow-Citi- 
zen of this our National Union. I therefore claim a full, un- 
questionable right to controvert here, and even with Mr. Loring, 
what seem to be pernicious, revolutionizing heresies. 

The subject of Reconstruction, to which our Author so ably 
invites attention,^ involves this whole question of Citizenship, 

1 The article to which this Reply was first begun, was one of nine columns in the Boston 
" Daily Advertiser," of 27th Oct., 1866. On the 29th Nov., a supplementary article 
appeared, of eight coliunns. Learning from Mr. Loring that a pamphlet edition would be 
published, with some httle additions, the Reply was delayed. The last of December, being 



XIV 



Explanatory. 



and also of State rights, in this our Nation. Therefore, fellow- 
Citizen, no matter to what State your own allegiance be due, 
the subject most emphatically is your cause — is my cause ; and 
none other relating to " the life that is," can be imagined which 
equals it in importance. 

What can be secret about such a cause — a cause reaching 
even to the very life of the Nation, for it touches State Sover- 
eignty — which we may not reveal to another ? K with truth, 
and fairness, and honor, any Citizen debate such a cause, would 
he be put to shame, even if worsted ? What Citizen worthy of 
his priceless birthright, would not respect even the endeavor? 
Therefore, with strong confidence in the liberality and magna- 
nimity of my Readers, and above all in the justice of my cause, 
I fear not shame whatever result betide me. 

If the cause be mine, which is undeniable, the injunction to 
debate is positive ; and we are taught by our rights of fellow- 
Citizenship in all these States, as well as by our Saviour's para- 
ble, that Mr. Loring and I are neighbors. Stuart renders the 
passage, " contend earnestly with thy neighbor ; " and though 
the word "himself" is added in our common version, it scarcely 
strengthens the thought. 

Not expecting to be put to shame myself, whatever the result; 
I trust the essay will prove that I have no desire to put our 
good and venerable Author to shame, even if I could. My chief 
object is to enforce upon his attention, and that of other Read- 
ers, the caption — " Study Principles, Scrutinize Premises." 

That I am not over-hasty in entering the strife, so far as time 
is to be regarded, will be admitted ; that is, if about six years 
of hard study of the subject, with perfect absorption of both 

favored with copies, in three or four days the printing of this Reply was commenced, which 
not progressing as rapidly as I wished, the delay has been taken advantage of to interpolate 
§§ 38, 39. 

It is due to myself to say, that writing here, with none of my books and papers for refer- 
ence, the Reply is less sustained with extracts than I would desire. Though every facility 
has been attbrded me in the excellent libraries of Boston, without my memoranda, it was 
difficult to lind readily what I wanted. Then the Reply was begun for a short newspaper 
article; and has grown beyond all my anticipations. But while the numbers have a good 
deal confused me, if the Reader will exercise patience on this point, and constantly regard 
the references, he will then be able to judge of the strength Mr. Loring has imparted to my 
argument. 

Further, my habit being to re-write every thing published, the present attempt is more 
imperfect than it ought to be. But to re-write would take nearly a month ; and in these 
quick times, and with these quick Citizens, it would become stale and obsolete. I should 
have been glad in particular to re-write §§ 38 and 39, but they have been the most off-hand 
of all, strung together under the spur of the printer's call for copy. 



Explanatory. xv 

heart and head, can be supposed to give qualification. In fact, 
my desire to lay before my fellow-Citizens the views concern- 
ing the nature of our Governments and Union, and the rights 
and wrongs of these States, acquired by these years of careful 
study, is the immediate occasion of this conflict with Mr. Lor- 
ing. As presented in a previous pamphlet, entitled " Conflict- 
ing Teachings of South Carolina and Massachusetts," I came 
to Boston to obtain aid to publish the first volume of my pro- 
jected work. The subscriptions of $300, each, were progress- 
ing, when Mr. Loring's first paper appeared ; and several prom- 
inent Citizens, whose names were more desirable for their influ- 
ence than for their money, being too much engaged to examine 
my views, and having little faith in their bringing any practical 
results ; some friends, and those who agreed with Mr. Loring 
in the main, deemed it expedient for me to undertake a reply. 
They naturally judged, that if my opinions possessed merit and 
force, and promised to be of practical utility, this was a proper 
occasion to test their applicability. 

This able presentation of popular notions concerning our 
Governments, also afforded an opportunity to point out the 
chief errors of the North, which I desired to controvert; and to 
give some reasons for the faith that is in me concerning the 
nature of our Governments and Union. 

Accordingly, about three weeks were taken to prepare a reply, 
that would have occupied some six columns of the "Advertiser." 
But my friends could not procure its insertion, and other jo'ur- 
nals were unwilling to give their space to a long answer to a 
paper published elsewhere. And though the "Advertiser " could 
and did find space for another such paper from Mr. Loring, I 
could myself see the propriety of giving currency to opinions 
from a learned, skilful and venerated Citizen, and rejecting my 
lucubrations. 

But several desired that my views should at all events be 
laid before the public, though differing with me fundamentally. 
Their letters to this effect had been printed, and one was from 
Mr. Loring himself, who said, " I shall welcome, however, any 
honest discussion of the questions now agitating the public mind 
upon these subjects;" notwithstanding he had previously said, 
"as far as I understand [your views], I differ with you essen- 
tially on those relating to State Sovereignty and independence." 
And in several interviews since, he has expressed gratification 



xvi Explanatory. 

that I was preparing a reply, saying discussion and light is 
what we want. 

So that Boston magnanimity would not permit this one-sided 
discussion ; and those differing with me fundamentally, besides 
others who approve in part — for no one concurs entirely — ad- 
vised to issue a pamphlet, for which a few contributed the 
funds. This permitted a more thorough reply, the delay of which 
for one reason and another, has led constantly to its expansion, 
until so much of Mr. Loring's articles were incorporated, that 
it seemed best to make it complete as to the first, which is 
Part I. of his pamphlet ; and most of Part 11. is also inserted. 

The Reader who desires to fully understand his subject, would 
do well first to read Mr. Loring's argument entire. It can be 
done by observing the following order : the large figures refer- 
ring to the number of the extract, and the small ones to my page 
1\ 2^ 33, T\ 81', 4588, 73^39^ 61% 74"o, 53^^ 15'^% ll^i, 64122 
1212, 1343^ 1445^ 60111, 15*^ 76i''i, 1649, 69126^ 1751^ ig^^, 11^^\ lO^o, 
78'*2^ 19'^2^ 20^\ 2153, 79142^ 66123, 72i36, 65123, 225^ 23^5, 24^', 5499 
68125, 70'2', 2559, 2660, 80146, 513^ 71130^ gl^s, 30'>5, 31*\ 6I112, 
2965, 27'>^ 82147, 2864, §2112, 529", 3267^ 83i49, 42^4, 84i49, 57io3, 4689, 

4080, 3978^ 4791^ 4892^ 4384^ 4485^ 58104^ 3469^ 4182^ 85 '54, 6311' 

86156, 55102^ 56103, 3368^ 4994^ 5094, 5195, 35^0^ 3671^ 3772^ 411^ 3372 
67123, 59:06^ 87-64, 936^ 

That completes Part I. of the pamphlet. Part II. not being 
particularly re|)lied to, the unquoted passages are indicated by 
periods:— 54^ ... (75, . . . £60^ _ _ jy jjm^ p^-i^ 88I66, 
Q85, . . . 96184, 97184, 98185, Tiio, K'% L'S m'\ J69^ , , . /6-^ 

N'', f/113, 89167, 082, QCA^ S^^ . . . 1/^6 , , , 99167^ . . . 91167^ 
. . . 92168, 7115^ . . ^ 93169^ 94170^ , , , p83^ 95171^ ^.1 

It may not be out of place to observe, that except as to our 
rights of conquest, Mr. Loring's argument is complete and 
logically deduced from his main premise of National Sovereignty. 
So that had I anticipated this full treatment, the more preferable 
method would have been to begin with his conclusions and trace 
him straight back to his premises; which would have been 
found, as is believed, the source of his errors. 

But as affirmed in the Reply, my object is less to confute Mr. 
Loring, than to invite attention to the all-important work of 
reinvestigating the principles of our Governments. My blunders 
in logic may exceed those referred to, and my little rhetoric be 
wholly inadequate ; but surely the practical good sense of 



Explanatory. xvii 

onr Citizens will discern, that however imperfect my own 
knowledge, however misjudged here the application of principles, 
a line of investigation is foreshadowed which is indispensable to 
us in our existing difficulties. Should this attempt exhibit in 
any degree the necessity of " Studying Principles, Scrutinizing 
Premises," my object will be attained. 

But please observe, that in my argument these principles are 
not made the main premise, — indeed are excluded from the 
thesis ; and for the reason, that the certainty of political science 
is not so generally admitted as it should be, and is here incapa- 
ble of proof. Not writing so much for these learned civihans, as 
for honest inquirers into the nature of our Governments and 
Union ; and to convince the doubters of the strength of our in- 
stitutions, who fear we are going to the dogs, and have no cour- 
age to lend a hand to lift our noble ship of State upon the 
ways, and give her an overhauling and a new outfit preparatory 
to another voyage, that in prosperity and in length will doubt- 
less outstrip the entire record of Nations, — writing more for 
such than to confute Mr. Loring, my argument is made very 
different from what it might be. Recognizing the importance 
of the authorities in political science, as we shall see towards 
the conclusion this learned jurist does, much more could doubt- 
less be made of them, even by an unskilful hand, than is here 
attempted. 

Because so many of our writers upon political subjects fail to 
get " clear, definite," and correct ideas of the chief terms, using 
them according to popular acceptation rather than with scientific 
precision ; and because most of them have their own peculiar 
theories which they endeavor to establish, instead of fairly apply- 
ing principles to facts and documents, thereby ascertaining ex- 
actly what we have ; and because the whole of them pursue 
precisely the same- methods of argument which Grotius con- 
demned (see p. 23) ; and because as a result of those false 
means and methods we have positive disagreements and contra- 
dictions, not only between different works and different authors, 
but pervading one and the same author, and his every volume ; 
it is not surprising that the practical good sense of these Citizens 
should lead them to believe that the science of politics, as they 
think it falsely called, is a senseless, incomprehensible jargon, 
with which a man who would keep his brain free for every-day 
concerns, had best not meddle, lest he become muddled and 
b 



xviii Explanatory. 

addled. They have no sucli dirik-nlty about the subjects to 
which they give attention ; and if those more learned and skil- 
ful — for generally are they members of the legal profession, of 
which they are supposed to understand the rudiments — can 
arrive at no determinate conclusion ; of what use for those 
busied with their daily avocations, to consider such a profitless, 
endless subject ? 

But while my ultimate object is to lead these Citizens to 
•' Study Principles, Scrutinize Premises," I propose to do this by 
an application of sound principles — recognized to be such — to 
Mr. Loring's argument ; whereby, if rightly handled, not oidy 
important fallacies will be detected in his arguments, but also his 
premises be proved unsound. Being, for above reasons, debarred 
the use of the fundamentals of political science, our funda- 
mental documents and insignia are employed, which will be 
found to supply an abundant stock of principles to demolish 
Mr. Loring's argument, even if not used with all desirable skill 
and power. 

These, then, are the weapons, and his arguments the object of 
assault. No more than this being attempted, more will not be 
expected. So that a reasonable Reader would not regard the 
essay an entire failure, merely because it does not present a per- 
fect treatise on political science, and does not solve all conceiv- 
able objections. Nor will any one assail the argument upon 
those incidental topics which are not discussed ; for — 

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it. 
It is folly and shame unto him. -» Prov. xviii. 13. 

That every opinion and statement of my own is duly estab- 
lished, is not pretended. With the wide difference between them 
and the chief teachings both North and South, they of course 
cannot be received as truth until verified. Their verification 
here would not be looked for ; nor is any attempt made thereto, 
further than was necessarv to refute Mr. Loring. Still, there 
ought to be a unity and consistency in an argument securely 
founded on genuine truths, which would of itself commend in- 
cidental opinions and declarations to a candid consideration. 
With reasonable success in this regard, the essay will have 
accordant judgment at the hand of any sincere investigator. 
None such will refuse consideration merely because of novelty ; 
or of conflict with ordinary teachings. That much in these 
teachings, both South and North, is wrong, is self-evident, hav- 



Explanatory. xix 

ing led to covenant-breaking, and to this terrible war. So that 
until a person shall have examined for himself, and learned what 
is truth, he cannot with certainty declare me in error. And 
would not a discreet Citizen hold his judgment in abeyance until 
qualified to judge, especially upon the points wherein I am sus- 
tained by the plain, positive declarations of our fundamental 
documents and insignia ? As to the other points, wherein he 
may imagine error, but has not sufficient acquaintance with the 
subject to judge, may he not with profit to himself and others 
regard the proverb, — 

The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit, 

Than seven men that can render a reason. — Prov. xxvii. 16, — 

and set himself to honest inquiry, whether, indeed, these things 
be so ? 

However puerile the achievement, to any one understanding 
and trusting the principles of political science, to overthrow the 
dogma of National Sovereignty ; if this effort aid at all in that 
work, it will not have been in vain. It ought, indeed, to afford 
considerable satisfaction, for the insufferable nonsense is the firm 
belief of nearly every northern Citizen. And as to myself, ever 
since the falsity was ascertained by candid examination, I have 
been denounced as a Secessionist, and as inimical to the North. 
To correct these unjust aspersions, would of itself be a strong 
incentive to effort; and I trust that sufficient evidence of sound- 
ness upon this point is presented, to render it possible that I may 
not be altogether in error upon other points of difference with 
popular notions. But with calumnious assailants like these, the 
only proper defence in such a cause, is to give as vigorous assault 
in return ; and therefore do I take the affirmative against Mr. 
Loring, their ablest advocate. 

Some of these Consolidists — for whatever they may consider 
themselves, every believer in National Sovereignty is surely a 
Consolidist — some of them may blame Mr. Loring for weak- 
ness and mistakes. But as herein argued, they who think they 
can improve upon Mr. Loring's argument for National Sover- 
eignty, will do well to exhibit their prowess. The chief point 
which any of them would make, is that which Mr. Loring so 
discreetly gives the go-by, — the words, " We the People of the 
United States," etc., in the preamble of the Constitution. Should 
an argument appear in advocacy of that, at all equal to this of 



XX Explanatory. 

Mr. Lorinf^'s, I will engage to substantiate the truth of the cap- 
tion to § 40, " Mr. Loring's Difficulties are less than others '." 

The opinion of the public press will be looked for with deep 
interest. As at present conducted, it is less the leader than the 
exponent of public sentiment; while at the same time, by the 
outcry and warning voice of the opposition to the party in power, 
it calls attention to the chief dangers. But I greatly misjudge, 
if the editorial fraternity do not almost unitedly proclaim that to 
" Study Principles, Scrutinize Premises," should, in the difficult 
present, be the first object of attention on all sides. Every honest 
effort to promote this object, will have their powerful aid ; and 
when the Press is once convinced of the soundness of my posi- 
tions, it will, with one accord, heartily second my efforts. Nor 
will the Editors rest satisfied until either my con-ectness or errors 
shall be substantiated. It is too important a line of investiga- 
tion to be neglected. So that as the most efficacious means of 
testing the utility of this project, I shall hope that funds will be 
subscribed sufficiently to permit a distribtition of these first 
Tracts to every newspaper and periodical in the land. Will the 
Editor who may give a notice, please send a copy to me at 9 
Staniford Street, Boston, Mass. ? 

This endeavor proves 1 did not misjudge in " Conflicting Teach- 
ings," as to the advantages of publication in Boston. Several of 
the best scholars, and those utterly opposed to my views, have 
aided in the examination of my MS. ; and others in the careful 
correction of proof-sheets, each having his own copy. As they 
seldom struck upon the same place f<i)r alteration, the changes 
are numerous and beneficial. It is indeed gratifying and en- 
couraging, that an effort so imperfect and ill-digested, should 
be deemed worthy of their careful scrutiny. Still, were I at 
liberty to use their names, they would not be responsible for 
imperfections, either of views or expressions ; for sometimes, 
against their advice, I have adhered to what was written. 

The length is particularly deprecated ; but 126 pages could 
not be answered and mostly quoted, without considerable space. 
Then, too, some of my best advisers consider that a succinct 
statement of the principles quoted from the authorities in political 
science, would have been more suitable to a pamphlet discussion. 
But my Reader — and I am writing specially for "the driving 
and driven business man," — should be able to see and judge for 
himself of the importance of the truths, their simplicity, and 



Explanatory. xxi 

their direct application to the solution of our difficulties, and in 
the author's own language as best translated. 

If these Citizens are indifferent or opposed to such reading, 
it would be folly at present to publish papers similar to this. 
But according to my view, a discussion of these great questions 
of politics, cannot be prosecuted with satisfaction to Author or 
profit to Reader, except upon the a priori method. Analysis may 
be useful in the outset, examining some of our teachings to 
ascertain that we are in the wrong way. Though even here, 
as in this discussion, it is the more certain method, to have a 
recognized rule of political faith, to apply to the views, and 
ascertain where they are sti'aight, where crooked. For this rule, 
I am at present compelled to take our fundamental documents 
and insignia. But I know too well their perfect accord with 
political science, to long take part in a political discussion with 
their aid alone. If the subject have interest, I desire early in 
its examination to prepare and publish one of the most im- 
portant Parts of my proposed Work, " The Certainty of Polit- 
ical Science ; " though another year or two of study will be an 
indispensable qualification. That will be followed with the 
main principles of that science, deduced by Plato, Aristotle, 
Cicero, etc., from " the Laws of Nature ; " and by Christian 
authorities from them, and from " the Laws of Nature's God," 
revealed to us in that chiefest political text-book, The Bible. 
I desire therefore to know whether such reading will interest 
our (Jitizens or not; and hope that individuals in various sec- 
tions who may read this Tract, and especially editors, will favor 
me with an expression of opinion upon this point. 

T am aware that those who consider themselves qualified to 
judge, affirm deduction to be wholly inapplicable to politics, 
its principles not being sufficiently established. It seems to 
me that they know nothing of the subject. In the beginning, 
induction may be used advantageously to examine and prove 
the errors of our chief authorities. But when we desire to 
establish what is truth, the a priori is the only suitable method, 
for the Bible is the chief text-book ; and the wisest and best of 
men, heathen, Jewish, and Christian, have elucidated its prin- 
ciples, so that politics may preeminently be classed among the 
sciences. 

But while my plans are laid by and by to bring together the 
principles of political science, so that we can see " wherein the 



XX 11 



Explanatory. 



principal jurists agree," and heed Kent's counsel, (p. 11) ; it will 
be the best of qualifications for that responsible task, and better 
suited to present wants, to discuss questions bearing upon current 
events in this most critical, eventful period of our history; 
the equal of which in variety and magnitude, will not probably 
again occur for centuries. But little progress can be made by 
me, unless fellow-Citizens will consent to the admission for the 
time being, until it can be substantiated, that Politics is a Science. 
Give me that premise, and probably my studies can be made 
measurably available, and aid in relieving our complications. 

Having seen herein something of what might be done in the 
application of principles to the present teachings of the school 
of Massachusetts; and realizing with Mr. Loring the necessity 
of doing something to change the public sentiment of the 
South ; it seemed well also to apply these same principles to 
some of the pVesent teachings of the school of South Carolina. 
Opportunely, a notice appeared of a new work by an old friend. 
Prof. A. T. Bledsoe, LL.D., some twenty-five years ago a lawyer 
in Illinois, and since Professor of Mathematics in the University 
of Virginia, and Assistant Secretary of War of the Confederate 
States. My acquaintance with the Author, and the title of his 
book, — " Is Davis a Traitor?" did not mislead me. It sup- 
plies precisely the material wanted, which will be examined in 
another Tract to prove that his errors of conclusion flow from 
premises equally as unsound, and untenable, as those of Mr. 
Loring. Indeed, his main premise will be found to be the one 
chief error of Massachusetts' great statesman, in his denial that 
the Constitution was a compact. 

The Reader shall find my theories are very practical. The 
measure of their value will be the extent of their demand. My 
opinions, at all events, shall not be crowded upon an unwilling 
public. The little pamphlet, " Conflicting Teachings," explains 
my plan and object ; and this Tract and the reply to Professor 
Bledsoe, and " Citi/cenship, Sovereignty," will sufficiently pre- 
sent my views for the public to judge of their utility ; and the 
extent of their circulation will soon satisfy me whether I am an 
unwarranted intruder or welcome helper. No further intrusion 
of this sort will be attempted, unless a wide demand for these 
publications shall manifest a decided interest in this new line of 
investigation. The pamphlet last named was stereotyped nearly 
four years ago ; mainly through the aid of my valued friend, 



^Explanatory. xxiii 

Prof. S. F. B. Morse. The first edition was distributed gratui- 
tously ; and another will soon be put on sale. As will be seen 
by the advertisement at the end, it is an " Introductory Com- 
j)end " of what I hope to establish. 

As remarked in " Conflicting Teachings," there is no occasion 
for haste in this work of reexamination ; and " the more haste 
the less speed." I can afford to wait with equal patience with 
that of any other Citizen ; for few have "equal confidence with 
me in the perpetuity of our institutions. The more one studies, 
even to many years, the more certainly will he learn that God 
has so ordered events and plans, that our system will endure 
almost any amount of misrule. So that my object is not at all 
to save our institutions, bat to do what little I may to remedy 
the evils of maladministration. 

Unless I am wholly wrong, and years of hard study prove 
worse than wasted, these practical Citizens will find ultimately 
the necessity of a thorough application of principles to the solu- 
tion of onr difficulties. For that good time coming, I can wait 
with less impatience than most others ; for not only have my 
examinations inspired fullest confidence, that after due correc- 
tion for our manifest disregard of " the Laws of Nature and of 
Nature's God," we shall be brought back to the paths our 
fathers trod ; but ray studies will absorb me for years to come 
equally with these past, — the most agreeable and profitable 
period of my life. 

But Solomon says farther, — 

A word fitly spoken, 

Is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. — Prov. xxv. 11. 

Oh, how beautiful, how glorious the " picture " of these States 
restored to fraternal concord in this our National Union I Golden 
indeed are the words which promote this the first step in the 
path of Reconstruction. Happy shall he be who utters them ; 
happy he who receives and heeds them. What so likely to 
prove virgin gold, — the purest, richest of heavenly wisdom, — 
as the truths and principles educed by the wisest of men from 
that immutable code, " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's 
God " ? And, oh, the resplendent lustre of that " silver picture,'" 
when these Citizens and these States can join in a National 
thanksgiving to our father's God and to our God, for our Union 
RECONSTRUCTED ! To attain this glorious consummation, let us 
heed the Prophet's words : — 



xxiv Explanatory. 

And when they shall say unto you, 

Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards 

That peep, and that mutter : 

Should not a People seek unto their God ■? 

Por the living to the dead ? 

To the Law and to the Testimony ! 

If they speak not according to this word, 

It is because there is no light in them. — Isa. viii. 19, 20. 

9 Staniford Street, Boston, February, 1867. 



REPLY 

TO 

HON. CHAS. G. LORING UPON "RECONSTRUCTION." 



§ 1. The Subject presented — its Importance. 

Under the head, " State Rig-Iits — Preliminary History of^^ 
Mr. Loring thus introduces his subject : — 

[1] Tlie question of tlie day with tlie people of the United States — and none 
of graver moment ever agitated the pubhc mind — is that concerning the claims of 
the inhabitants of the several States, recently in open rebellion against the national 
Government, to be readmitted to the exercise of the personal and corporate polit- 
ical powers and franchises which they enjoyed under the Constitution before they 
made war upon the Union in order to accomplish its destruction. 

" The question of the day," truly, is that of '■'■Reconstruction,^- 
which is the title chosen by Mr. Loring for his paper. The 
head of his first division, too, is very appropriate, for the State 
Rights doctrine 1 is the basis of our compound system, as set 

1 Just as this paper goes to the printer, I am favored by our Author with copies of an ele- 
gant paHiphk't edition of his papers, in which these paragraphs are added to what had been 
said in the newspaper, indicative of his high appreciation of State Rights : — 

[A 12'f] " He cannot, however, leave the subject without adverting to a possible misapprehension of 
liis views upon the importance and sacredness of the rights of the States under the Constitution, 
which might arise from tiie nature of the discussion which has been attempted. It will be observed, 
that his only object has been to vindicate the sovereignty of the General Government against tlie as- 
yiiults made upon it by advocates of the rights of inhabitants of States who had renounced allegiance 
to it, and had engaged in civil war for its overthrow ; and consequently, that the discussion has been 
almost exclusively confined to con.=ideration of the relations of the States to the General Government 
in that aspect only, and of the subordination and limitations of State sovereignty rather than of it« 
attributes. But no one can be more profoundly impressed, than he believes himself to be, with the 
essential importance and inviolability of the rights intended to be secured to the several States under 
the Constitution. lie accounts their individual sovereignty and independence over the domestic rela- 
tions and municipal law, and in the internal governments of their respective inhabitants, as the very 
foundation stones of the national Government. The preservation of this sovereignty and indepen- 
dence, to the fullest extent warranted by the Constitution, he considers to be chief among the fun- 
damental principles of American statesmanship ; as the only means po.ssible of maintaining a free and 
energetic government over territories of extent so vast as those already comprised within our national 
boundaries; as the safest barrier against attempt at Executive usurpation; as the main bulwark 
against the natural tendency of the General Government, as of all others, to consolidation and central- 
ization of its authority ; and which, not thus controlled, attaining at first to the exerci.se of arbitrary 
power by the many, would, as all history prophesies, eventually terminate in practical despotism ; 
1 



2 Reply to Mr. Lori7ig upon '■'■ Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

forth in the motto of Illinois — " State Sovereignty, National 
Union." But for a subject that not only permits but demands 
such headings, is that an adequate presentation ? The questions 
which they introduce become all the more "of graver moment," 
their full and free discussion the more indispensable, in that a 
lawyer of Mr. Loring's knowledge, experience, and acuteness, 
can thus present his subject. 

All the more perplexing is such a discussion from the fact 
that our difficulties are without parallel in history. The nearest 
resemblance in fact is most distant in time, being the wars be- 
tween the Tribes or States of ancient Israel, recorded in the 
succinct Book of Judges. Greece affords little instruction, 
owing not merely to meagreness of record, but to the existence 
of many confederacies ; affording a striking example of what 
we should shun, and little of what we are to do, except as to the 
preventing of division. The clashings in that classic field of 
light and liberty, which have erroneously made Democracy a 
synonyme for discord and feud, arose, not as Prof. Tayler Lewis 
argues, and as is generally believed, from State autonomy, but 
from rival Confederacies. Such would the South in the 
frenzy of passion have here inaugurated, had not the God of 
our fathers again intervened in our behalf, saving South as well 
as North from evils that should never be repeated by confed- 
erate States, which have even that meagre history for a warn- 
ing. Aristotle saw the evils, and said in his " Politics," that if he 
could unite all Greece in a polity of polities (TroXtVeta TroXtTciwi) 
he could defy the world. Not less indispensable to us than to 
Greece, is entire union ; which God teaches, not more by cos- 
mogony than by providences, should be continental. 

Except that circumstance in Greece, and the earnest desire of 
Israel to restore Benjamin to its full power, we can gather little 
instruction from history adapted to our circumstances, and must 
resort to general principles applicable to all States or Nations for 
the solution of our difficulties. And this becomes the more in- 
cumbent, and at the same time more difficult, because we are 
not agreed as we should be as to what these principles are, as 
this discussion exemplifies. 

and, above all, as the sufficient and only instrumentality for educating and disciplining successive 
generations in the liuowledge and practice of political rights and duties, by which alone they can be 
made capable of self-government. 

" And no one will hail with profounder gladness a just perception on the part of the inhabitants of 
the rebel States of their true relations to the Government, and their return to their constitutional 
places in the Union which, unhappily for us all, they have made vacant."' 



§1.] The Subject presented — its Importance. 3 

These, however, are rather my views of the subject than Mr. 
Loring's, who conceives that the days of our Confederation were 
fortunately ended with our Constitution, as we shall find in due 
time. And our recent contest, instead of being one between sov- 
ereign States, as it must have been were we actually possessed 
of " State Rights," is thus characterized with its effects : — 

[2^] That, by reason of that rebellion and its suppression, those who were 
parties to it forfeited their rights, as individual citizens, to property, liberty, and 
life, of which they could at any time be deprived by due process of law, and to 
which they could be restored only by the pardon of the Government, no one who 
does not justify the Rebellion denies. The only controversy is, whether citizens, 
thus under the ban of the law, became, upon the laying-down of their arms and 
profession of submission to the national Government, at once restored to their for- 
mer rights, as inhabitants of their respective States, to immediate participation in 
the councils of the nation, and to immediate agency in the administration of the 
national Government. 

Lamentably true is that last sentence, the whole " contro- 
versy " about Reconstruction being made to turn upon the one 
"point of our rights to deal with " rebels." So that literally this 
paper, which purports to begin with a " preliminary History of 
State Rights," in only the second paragraph runs square off 
into a discussion of the rights and powers of this supreme Na- 
tional Government ! 

Few in the North have any conception that the Citizens of the 
seceded States after all may not be "rebels"; and the admission 
that they are, seems to be coming into vogue even at the South 
also. But should the hypothesis of a Confederation be estab- 
lished counter to that of Mr. Loring's National Sovereignty, 
another important element will be introduced in the " contro- 
versy." And the writer desires it distinctly understood, that he 
for one denies point-blank that the Citizens of the seceded States 
were, in any just sense of the word, "rebels." Yet does he not 
justify the South ? Far from it. It shall be my purpose to 
show that if they were " rebels," we could not have obtained 
over them the rights of conquest. That we could and have 
acquired these rights, it is of the first importance to the future 
maintenance of our National Union to have well understood ; 
and above all, that it has been done by virtue of State Sov- 
ereignty. Should this result be effected, it will be found to con- 
siderably affect Mr. L.'s " practical issue " as follows : — 

f S^J The practical issue may be thus stated : whether it is competent for the 
national Government, as now administered, to impose upon the inhabitants of the 
several States lately in open rebellion against it, such terms and conditions of re- 



4 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '•'-Beconst ruction.'" [T. 2. 

admission to the exercise of their former political powers, in the administration of 
the national sovereignty, as it may judge to be essential for its future security ; or 
wliether, having laid down their arms and professed a readiness to oliey the laws, 
those inhabitjints are entitled to an immediate recognition of those powers as mat- 
ter of right, and to be permitted at once to reassume the exercise of them in the 
councils of the nation. 

The alternatives result from the preceding hypothesis, and 
with it stand or fall. And it shall be my endeavor to prove, 
that the first words at the head of this division — " State 
Rights" — mean something: and that neither State nor Fed- 
eral Government has the least right or power to do a solitary 
thing " in the administration of the national sovereignty," — 
State Sovereignty, I would say, — not authorized in its respect- 
ive letter of authority, its Constitution, which has been duly 
granted by the possessor and sole proprietor of every State right 
— especially the chief of all, and that controlling every other, the 
Right of Command, the Sovereignty — which is the People of 
each State. 

Mr. Loring assuming the affirmative,^ as shall I, is too good 
a logician not to understand the importance of a true and 
proper presentation of his subject. That given, is probably the 
best of which such a mixture compounded of the heads and of 
the text is susceptible. Thus in the very outset is exhibited 

1 Since this reply was mostly written, another article of eight and a half columns, in con- 
tinuation of his subject, appears from Mr. Loring in the "Advertiser" of 29th Xoveniber, 
opportunely stimulative of the thanks from many hearts that day rendered to Jehovah. 
This is the opening paragraph: — 

[£60] "It having been attempted, in the previous article upon thi.s subject, to maintain affii-uia- 
tively the right of Congress to impose upon the people of the rebel States terms or conditions of restor- 
ation to their political power and privileges as States in the Union under the Constitution, a just 
treatment of the subject demands consideration also of the position taken, and arguments adduced 
in defence of the opposite theory, usually designated as the President's Policy." 

Let it not be inferred, because Mr. Loring is here controverted, that " the President's PohVy " 
is supported. The President, and many others who hold the faith of Democracy, and of the 
strictest State-Rights School, as they believe, will find themselves in a curious fix. They 
believe tiie Citizens of the South to be actually "rebels " ; though they merely obeyed the 
behest of their sovereign States; and yet hold to the doctrine of State Sovereignty! Those 
who believe with Judge Curtis in the actual Sovereignty of the Government of the L'nited 
States, are at least consistent, and can now argue that the " Rebellion " having been put 
down, the seceded States and Citizens are, ipso facto, restored to their former condition in 
the Union. But how any Democrat, especially a State-Rights Democrat, which is only a 
little variance of expression, can so believe, is past my comprehension. 

Neither do I see how the President, or any other State-Rights Democrat, can deny the 
fact of Secession, which without the resulting rights of con(piest, has created the necessity 
of Reconstruction. It is not tlie States — they will be found no iabulce nme~ that need 
reconstructing; though by virtue of the rights of concpiest we can, if we please, require the 
remodelling of their State Governments. But it is our Federal Union that is to be recon- 
structed. 

I am therefore as directly antagonistic to the President as to Mr. Loring. 



§ 1.] The Subject presented — its Importance. 5 

the conflict between his head and his heart : the one holding 
tenaciously to State Rights, the other seeking vainly a stay for 
National Sovereignty. A cause in which his heart was in- 
volved, without bewilderments of the head, would never have 
been given to the jury of his fellow-Citizens after that fashion, 
and with the variety of opinions affecting the result so imper- 
fectly examined. 

But a controversy, so momentous as Mr. Loring justly con- 
siders this to be, unparalleled in magnitude or in difficulty, re- 
quires something more than bare propriety of presentation. 
The entire ratiocination should be logical, clear, and sound, 
with only the diversity of view which Mr. Loring presents 
himself; and far more so when assuming the direct fundamen- 
tal antagonism existing between my hypothesis and Mr. Lor- 
ing's. For the " practical issue " between us may be reduced to 
this thesis : — 

Our fundamental documents and insignia, are a true rule of 
political faith : 

Mr. Loring's premises and arguments are counter to them : 

Therefore the results of Mr. Loring's arguments and premises 
are not trustworthy. 

In an argument, of course the premises are first to be re- 
garded ; and however it may be with his own, he may properly 
hold as to the foregoing, that — 

§ 2. Premises must be sound. 

Mr. Loring's main premise,^ though not formally presented, 
will be found to be the Sovereignty of the United States. But 

1 So ample and excellent is the material supplied by Mr. Loring's first paper, that it will 
be seen a strong edifice might be constructed with it alone, whether done here or not. But 
portions of the second may also be advantageously used for what we who have lived in log- 
houses call cJtiiiktni/ ; some topics, as this of premises, having been omitted in the first paper. 
The second is still silent concerning his own, though Judge Curtis is taken to task severely 
on account of his premises. Is Mr. li. silent for shame, that his theoretic head controls his 
premises, leading him directly contrary to his practical heart? Follow the impulses of your 
sound heart, Mr. Loring, and stand by "-Reconstruction," and " State Rights," and they 
shall not make you ashamed. 

Mr. Loring exhibits not only the importance of sound premises, but also of their just ap- 
plication. Ma}' like happy results follow the examination of Mr. L.'s, with those anticipated 
in the case of Judge Curtis. Says our Author: — 

[C71] "Starting with seemingly very simple postulates or propositions, — so simple, indeed, as to 
have the appearance of mere truisms, but wbich, it is believed, have no substantial application to the 
case in hand — the letter proceeds to draw from them the desired conclusions ; and, having accom- 
plished this by way of general argument, it finally startles us with a novel and specious construction 
of the Constitution, investing the President with the omnipotent authority he claims, — a construc- 
tion believed to be entirely original, and which, if maintainable, entitles the author to the profound 



6 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '■* Reconstruction." [T. 2. 

this is kept in the background as much as possible, and even 
the antipodal principle of State Rights is set forth in his first 
head, which would lead to the inference that he would use that 
in his argument. By no means. National Sovereignty, not 
the Sovereignty of the States, is his main premise, and we hear 
very little about State Rights.^ 

Mr. Loring's heads are not inconsiderately taken, and in all 
honesty and sincerity are presented ; so that this earnest if not 
sound advocate of " iieconstruction," and of " Slate Rights," 
cannot be at heart, whatever he may be in his head, a revolu- 
tionist. Nevertheless, the elaborate argument in the Boston 
"Advertiser" of October 27th, viewed from this stand-point upon 
the basis of our fundamental documents and insignia, which is 
fortified with that impregnable bulwark, the principles of politi- 
cal science, seems utterly subversive of our entire governmental 
system. 

gratitude of that functionary, and of all worshippers of the ' one-man power.' So that, after the 
perusal of the letter in the usual manner in which papers of this sort are read, one might naturally 
lay it down in a sort of dreamy couTietion that the President's policy is Tindicated by the simplest and 
clearest demonstrations, ' which he who runs may read.' 

" It is proposed, however, more carefully to examine the premises, and the conclusions justly dedu- 
cible from them, if they can be applied to the existing facts. And, upon such examination, it is be- 
lieved that the author of the letter, and Congress, will be found to be much nearer to each other in 
ultimate opinion, as founded upon general principles, than he .>ei'nis to imagine ; and that the great 
difference between them will rest mainly on the novel construction of the Constitution alluded to, whicli 
will also be examined, and with great confidence that it has no solid foundation." 

Hon. B. R. Curtis' preuiise.s are certainly not entirely sound if mine are so, for lie believes 
with Mr. Lorin*; and nearly all statesmen of the North, in the Nationality and Sovereignty 
of the United States. But while Mr. L. holds to that Sovereignty as the very basis of oiir 
rights of conquest, Judge Curtis, with more correct apprehension of the principles of po- 
litical science, denies that we could have the rights of conquest, because the Nation has the 
Sovereignty ; the rights of which could not be increased by merely subduing a rebellion, 
which both Mr. L. and Judge C. alKnn this late contest to have been. Therefore, both are 
controverted as to this main premise of National Sovereignty, in order to prove Judge Curtis 
wrong and Mr. Loring right in the conclusion, that we have the rights of conquest. 

But Mr. Loring exhibiting these correct conceptions of the necessity of sound premises 
on the part of Judge Curtis, he will not be displeased to have the same rule applied to Lis 
own argument. Not that I imagine his product merely " a sort of dreamy conviction." 
The severe searching and sifting applied to the premises and arguments of his friend and 
legal brother, is a j)attern that I should vainly attempt to imitate. Yet as without that skill 
and power, it may be ascertained that Mr. Loring's conclusions diverge from his premises; 
and as my argument conducts to his conclusion that we have the rights of conquest — dif- 
fering merely as to who has them, and how they are to be used — a conclusion, too, reached in 
large measure by the force and application of his own arguments, there is reason to hope 
that convincing as his rea.soning is, he will himself admit the improvement of applying it 
to my premises. 

i The considerate views, which with my notions are natixrally made foremost, and are 
therefore already quoted, and on my first page; were an after-thought with Mr. Loring, 
added after his articles were printed in the 'Advertiser." That the heading of his first 
divisi(m should have been so entirely overlooked, receiving its main consideration at the 
tail end, and then as an after-thought, proves conclusively the entire supremacy which 
National Sovereignty has acquired over both his head and heart. 



§2. 



Premises must he sound. 



These opinions, also, are adopted by a large class of the lead- 
ing statesmen of the North ; while most of the rest, some of whom 
Mr. Loring combats,^ hold to others equally revolutionary and 

1 While as an antagonist of both Judge Curtis and Mr. Loring, it is less material which 
of them proves victor, than that each should get a well-deserved drubbing from the other; 
3'et " fair play is a jewel," and Mr. Loring appears inadvertently to misrepresent Judge 
Curtis' view. The latter has just previously been quoted as arguing from Mr. Loring's own 
hypothesis of National Sovereignty, that "the ?ia<Mre of our Government does not permit the 
United States to destroy a State, or acquire its territory by conquest.''' Also another premise 
of Judge Curtis is quoted " as follows:" " Neither does it permit the people of a State to de- 
stroy the State, or lawfully affect it in any one of its relations to the United States." These 
premises doubtless accord with the Crittenden-Johnson resolution ; but that only declared 
our object in the contest, and does not in the least affect the result, and is of no further author- 
ity than merely to express the opinion of Congress as to the war. The result is controlled 
by " the nature of our Government," and political principles applicable; and to these must 
resort be had, as our fundamental documents are silent upon these points. Yet Mr. Loring 
thus admits and thus argues : — 

[D ''] " Now, these premises, taken in their literal and seemingly natural meaning, are simple and 
undeniable, excepting the assertion that to exercise the rights of conquest over the inhabitants of a 
rebellious State, subdued by force of arms of the Government of the United States, is the same thing 
as the destruction of the State by that Government, which will presently be considered. No one ever 
pretended that the Government of the United States, acting within its constitutional limits, could vol- 
untarily destroy a State, or could voluntarily assent to the withdrawal of a State from the Union, or to 
the alteration of any of her constitutional relations to it. And, if these premises are to be thus under- 
stood, it is obvious that they have no relevancy to the case under consideration. But it is impossible 
to believe this to be their intended signification. To give to them any reasonable interpretation, as 
applicable to any issue before the country, they must be construed as implying and intended to signify, 
that any terms imposed upon the people of the rebel States as conditions of their restoration to the 
privileges of States in the Union, beyond those of present submission to the authority of the Constitu- 
tion and the laws, is virtually the destruction of those States, or can be rightfully enforced only upon 
the hypothesis that the Government of the United States has accomplished that destruction by becom- 
ing their conquerors in war. 

" This mode of reasoning, usually founded by its authors on representations or implications that the 
Government was the aggressor which inaugurated the war, and was pursuing it for the conquest of the 
rebel States and their subjugation to its authority, — and which gives a corresponding bias to all their 
arguments and hypotheses, — however unconsciously adopted, is nevertheless believed to be founded 
upon an entire misconception or erroneous supposition of the facts as really existing, not to say on one 
the entire reverse of the truth." 

Judge Curtis with sound logic argues from their common stand-point of Federal Sov- 
ereignty, that according to " the nature of our Government," it could not have acquired any 
new rights by conquest, upon which Mr. Loring himself admits that no authorities can be found. 
[/.]67. Also, that it permits no destruction of the State by itself — State suicide; — either of 
wliich positions it will trouble any one to prove or disprove from authorities, for the possibil- 
itv of such nonsense seems never to have come into the head of any prominent writer to con- 
trovert. Yet counter to those sound positions, granting their common premise, Mr. Loring 
deems his simple affirmation sufficient to prove the direct contrary. He says, " To give to 
them [the premises] any reasonable interpretation . . . they imist be construed . . . [as 
effecting] virtually the destruction of those States," and " that the Government of the United 
States has accomplished that destruction by becoming their conquerors in war." Is not that 
a fair rendering? 

Mr. Loring commits the further injustice in the second paragraph, of making the Govern- 
ment the aggressor, which Judge Curtis, and all of his faith, explicitly repudiates, holding 
properly to the position of the Crittenden-Johnson resolution, that we were strictly on the 
defensive. To be sure, there is that inconsistency in Judge Curtis' position, that the Citi- 
zens of the South were actually "rebels," and yet that our war was not to subdue them. 
But Mr. Loring has no right to avail himself of that point, for he holds to the same idea. 

Besides, the whole argument turns upon " the nature of our Government," and the right 



8 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon ^'■Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

more untenable. The two classes include nearly every promi- 
nent teacher among us, each of whom mingles with much prac- 
tical truth declarations of fact and of law which destroy our 
political institutions and the science upon which they are 
grounded ; if, indeed, with their notions, politics can be consid- 
ered as having settled principles, and be at all entitled to the 
appellation of science. 

These current opinions, too, are here fairly presented, and are 
well argued from the premises. Such premises can never bring 
about genuine " i^econstruction," upon the basis of " State 
Rights," which Mr. Loring's heads prove he is seeking; but en- 
tire revolution. Archimedes, given a standing-place, lever and 
fulcrum, would have overturned the world. Mr. Loring, too, 
granted his premises, would overthrow this our world of delight, 
and benefit, our incomparable system of free Governments. It 
is their premises that must be destroyed to prevent these mod- 
ern Archimedeses from revolutionizing not only our compound 
system, but the whole science of politics, for they stand or fall 
together. 

Such is my individual confidence in the strength of political 
science, that I would prefer to make its principles the chief pre- 
mises in this argument. But many readers not having that con- 
fidence, our fundamental documents and insignia are made the 
main reliance. Yet these not defining themselves, the words and 
phrases when applied to law or fact, connected with State affairs, 
which \& politics, having to be construed according to their mean- 
ing in political science, let us, then, next inquire — 

§ 3. Is Knowledge in Politics reduced to a Science ? 

This important topic cannot in this space be discussed, but 
in my proposed work will have such early consideration as is in- 
dispensable, for many who ought to know the truth deny that 
politics has established principles. Here we have to assume 
that politics is a science, and also that Pufendorf, Grotius, and 
Aristotle are chief teachers, which is also susceptible of demon- 

of " the people of a State to destroj'- a State ; " and to decide those points, resort must be 
had to the principles of political science. These would not be expected in a short letter like 
that of Judge Curtis', but would be in an elaborate reply like this; yet the sole reference is a 
repetition of Vattel from the first letter, which is itself found to be inapplicable to the case in 
question. 

Is this momentous question of" iZcconstruction," and of' State Rights," dependent solelv 
upon sucii premises, and such arguments V Adding " of principles " al^er " misconception," 
and I subscribe to the concluding sentiments. 



§ 3.] Is Knowledge in Politics reduced to a Science ? 

stration, for in an established science there must be recognized 
authorities. 

But though there be in politics as in religion a true science, to 
attain a knowledge of which man may justly be held responsible 
by both the Sovereignty of heaven and of earth ; yet like all 
things of human invention, even knowledge of these essen- 
tials is imperfect. The elements, the simple truths of both are 
perfect, being revealed to us by our Creator, both by precept and 
example, in one and the same Bible, or The Book. 

For the method of arriving at truth by induction, which 
Bacon brought so much into vogue, nothing can excel biblical 
narrations; and of the deductive method, which Aristotle ap- 
plied successfully to politics, the most brilliant, most powerful 
examples, are found in Scripture, Aristotle being excelled by 
Paul. And man is endowed with his wonderful powers of head 
and of heart — "For as he thinketh in his heart so is he," 
(Prov. xxiii. 7) — chiefly to attain sound knowledge of, and cor- 
rectly to practice, those revealed precepts and instructions. The 
one is the art, the other the science, of theology or of politics ; 
both of which, being the work of imperfect man, partake of hi« 
imperfection. 

The world, too, has had but one Aristotle, one Paul, though 
perverteirs of their teachings abound ; and few of our would-be 
teachers, like Montesquieu, take twenty years to study a sub- 
ject, but utter their crude, ill-digested opinions, regardless of 
whom they controvert, or what philosophic principles they deny. 
So that even wise and pious men like Locke, and Blackstone, 
and Paley, became co-laborers with infidels, and subverters of a 
science they would be foremost to defend, had they better stud- 
ied the subject. And others, like Paine and Rousseau, with no 
basis of faith, political or religious, would destroy the entire so- 
cial fabric both of Church and State ; for they stand or fall 
together. Then, too, the difficulty of finding truth's narrow 
way, and the ease of walking in the broad path of error, conjoins 
with the tendency of selfish man to pervert and turn to his indi- 
vidual aggrandizement such powerful influences as those ol 
State ; and to hide misconduct, and for appearance sake, some 
precedent or rule is sought. Considering these and similar cir- 
cumstances, as well as the natural imperfection of all things 
human, it is not surprising that even the science of politics is 
defective. 



10 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'' ' [T. 2. 

We ought, therefore, to be moderate in our expectations of 
definiteness and precision in this science, which is unnatural to 
any one of the sciences except mathematics. As a consequence 
of ignoring this imperfection, consider the oceans of words 
wasted upon the question whether Government rests upon con- 
sent, and whether it be a creature of compact. It is, and it is not., 
as to the latter ; it does and it does not, as to the former. Locke 
and Rousseau and that school, make consent and compact the 
sole basis of Government ; Blackstone and his school ridicule 
the idea. Both are wrong. On the one hand, it is impossible to 
conceive of a Government in a free State, except as instituted 
by compact; and the compact itself would be invalid did it not 
rest upon free consent. Nor was ever a Monarchy rightly and 
justly instituted except by compact and consent. Saul and 
David were chosen Kings of Israel. William the Conquerer 
covenanted with the Barons and Church officials of England, 
they accepting him as their King. In 1688, the crown was 
granted by vote of Parliament, the Commons being elected for 
the purpose, to William, Prince of Orange ; and he and every 
other King of Great Britain, covenanted by oath to be governed 
by the laws and ancient usages. 

On the other hand, in no State are the majority allowed to 
participate in the Government; and history records no example 
of such an one. Over three-fourths of the population are 
women and minors, who so far from joining in the compact, 
cannot even give consent according to law. Yet are they not 
of right made subjects ? Paupers, too, the insane, convicts, and 
slaves, have no voice in the Government over them. 

Whether right or wrong, the entire science, and also the art 
of politics, is based upon this manifest contradiction, arising 
even in its very origin. In one sense Government does rest 
upon consent and compact. In another sense it does not. 
Similar difficulties pervade the whole science ; so that the stu- 
dent who comes to its examination expecting to find perfection, 
will be little profited. 

Still, it being the chief subject of instruction in the Old Tes- 
tament, with much concerning it also in the New, and having 
always had more consideration than any other except the closely 
related one of religion, and by the wisest and best of men, the 
knowledge attained and systematized ought to entitle it to the 
appellation of science. And a candid examination will prove 



§ 8.] Is Knowledge in Politics reduced to a Science? 11 

that, if not perfect, it is truly a science, with settled principles, 
established laws ; the violations of which lead to a large part 
of the evils afflicting humanity, and are the immediate occasion 
of all our past and present difficulties. 

But every teacher in this science is not a certain authority. 
Except the Bible, all are fallible. The declaration of neither 
Pufendorf, nor Grotius, nor even Aristotle, is to be received as 
positive truth. The best have made their mistakes, though it is 
observable that they are less in the principles themselves than 
in their application to practice. It is the concord of several 
which, as Kent says, establishes their judgment upon a given 
point, so that the civilized world receives it as a principle. For 
as this eminent American jurist remarks, — 

In cases where the principal jurists agree, the presumption will be very great 
in favor of the solidity of their maxims ; and no civilized nation, that does not ar- 
rogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance, will venture to disregard the 
uniform sense of the established writers on International Law. 

Yet there are those who ignore these authorities, and suppose 
Story, Wheaton, Madison, and Hamilton equal to any, and as 
understanding our system better than foreigners, believing it to 
be sui generis, of which antiquated writers had no knowledge. 
With such, no argument could be held upon this point, because 
they deny the premises which must here be assumed. That Mr. 
Loring, however, is not to be reckoned among them, is proved 
by several passages, as we shall see, and toward the close of his 
article he observes : — 

^463j \ constitution of national government demands more than mere obedi- 
ence to rules of law founded upon domestic expediency, which renders their applica- 
tion to such instruments imperative and conclusive, often without much, if any, re- 
gard to the fundamental question of intention, or of right or wrong between the 
parties, or the purposes for wliich they were made ; and with none, if a teclmical 
rule can be found decisive of the question. Such rules are of inevitable necessity 
in the multifarious relations and commerce of individual life, and, in tlie long-run, 
subserve the cause of justice. 

While recognizing the paramount claims of International 
Law, which is nothing but an enumeration and elucidation of 
the principles of political science in their relation to the practice 
of States, that paragraph seems not to be expressed with Mr. L.'s 
usual precision. Even the State itself, for whose benefit the 
Constitution of Government, whether State or Federal, is or- 
dained, — is " founded upon domestic expediency," as we shall 
Boon learn from Aristotle. He says, the State " is first founded 



12 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

that men may live, but continued that they may live happily." 
While man's relations extend to the whole human family, yet is 
+he State, of necesyity, " founded on domestic expediency"; and 
a Constitution that disregards that object, or that has no 
" regard to the fundamental question of intention or [especially] 
of right or wrong between the parties, [whether individuals or 
States, J or the purposes for which they [the rules of law, I sup- 
pose,] were made," is absolutely void in its very nature — of no 
obligation to any party. But Mr. Loring can scarcely have de- 
signed to imply this, as the context proves; which with other 
parts presents correctly the obligations of principles, or the Law 
of Nations, which are no less applicable to the foundation of, 
than to the subsequent conduct of States. And were Mr. Lor- 
ing and others equally well informed, my sole readers, those 
principles would be made ray main premise. So that to meet 
the case of those who have not equal confidence in political sci- 
ence, another premise is submitted, that with every American 
Citizen ought to be unquestionable — 

§ 4. Our Fundamextai. Documents and Insignia are true 

AND trustworthy. 

What ought to be, is not always, in this world of ignorance 
and of wrong. For there are those who even dare to deny that 
the Declaration of Independence, our Federal and State Con- 
stitutions, the mottoes of Illinois and of the United States, are 
reliable upon essential points. With such it is idle here to 
attempt to argue. They differ with our Author, who, by his 
quotations without criticism or questioning, recognizes them as 
standard authorities. And due examination will drive every in- 
vestigator who has faith in the fathers, to receive the principles 
of political science as the basis upon which they founded our 
system. Ours, in truth, is the only complete exemplification 
of those principles extant, as Professor Maine, in his " Ancient 
Law," and surely its American editor, ought to have announced. 
Our practice, beginning with the rise of these Colonies, the Rev- 
olution, the creating of these States, the forming of our first Con- 
federation, the making of our " more perfect Union," will be 
found in every step in perfect concord with the principles of 
political science. 

To one of these documents in particular, Mr. Loring applies 



§ 4.] Fundamental Documents and Insignia true ayid trustworthy. 13 

attributes and effects far exceeding what I could do, as we shall 
see. His third division thus begins: — 

[5-"] BjMhe Constitution, entire nationality was substituted for confederation. 
Wiiilc, as before stated, the people of the several States retained their internal sov- 
ereignty over their domestic relations, they surrendered i to the nation all the attri- 
butes of external and many of the most essential of those of Internal sovereignty ; 
entered into obligations of allegiance and obedience to the Constitution, and all 
laws made in pursuance tliereof, os the supreme law of the land ; and made an oath 
by persons elected to offices of State to support the Constitution, essential to the 
organization of their respective State governments.^ In return for which, the Con- 
stitution conferred upon the citizens of all the several States, or secured them in 
the enjoyment of two distinct classes of political rights and privileges, — one of 
tliese pertaining to them individually as citizens of the nation ; and the other con- 
sisting of those which each has in combination with others as members of the polit- 
ical corporate body or State of which they are inhabitants, including tliose of rep- 
resentation in the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress. 

The word " State," therefore, as used in the Constitution, can only be construed 
to signify one under a government organized according to its requisitions, recog- 
nizing its supreme authority, and admitting the duty of obedience to its provisions 
and to all laws enacted in conformity with it. If a State be not in this condition, 
although it may still e.xist as a State within the Union, its inhabitants remaining 
subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the General Government, and to the Con- 
stitution and the laws, and to compulsory obedience to them, — nevertheless, it is 
not a State contemplated by the Constitution as entitled to the rights of those who 
have remained in full communion under it. And this propositit)n, seemingly so 
self-evident, is rnade, if possible, nujre manifestly true upon examining its provis- 
ions touching the rights and obligations created by it. Take, for instance, the 
rights of representation in Congress, the immediate subjects of inquiry. 

1 No right, not a single one, has any State sumndered to the United States, or any body 
else. But as it delegates the exercise of some of its powers to its State Government, so it del- 
egates others by compact with sister-Commonwealths, to their Federal Agency. But 
whereas each State may at will change its mode of exercising the power, so that Kepubli- 
caiiism be maintained, the Federal can only be altered at the joint will of the other parties, 
according to the provisions of their compact. 

2 To be sure, the same necessities which compelled these weak States, in order to preserve 
their sovereignty, freedom, and independence, to unite in creating the Federal Government, 
made them solicitous to prevent their State otficials from interfering or injuring it; and hence 
the judicious reqinrement that, in their oath of office, they swore •' to support the Constitu- 
tion of the United States." But do they swear to it allegiance? 

No (dlei/innce is due to the Constitution ; but as liege subjects of their sovereign State, 
they owe it obedience, as they do to their State Governments. The supreme liiw is not en- 
titled to allegiance, but it is due to that possessor of the Right of Command which is able to 
declare which laws or constitution, State or Fc-deral, shall have superiority. 

It is true the dictionaries are agreed in defining it as a tie to the Governiuent as well as 
to the Sovereign, an error of his day into which even that prince of Tories, Johnson, fell — 
putting sovereignty out of the King into the King's Government. But it is derived from 
(dliffo — ad lif/(i — J bind to; and is exactly defined by Story in 3 Peters, 155: "Now, alle- 
giance is nothing more than the tie or dutj' of obedience of the subject to the sovereign 
under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born 
within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign." Would that 
that eminent jurist and commentator had been as correct in all his utterances! Unques- 
tionably is allegiance the tie to the person, whether the one, the/eir, or the manij, yet always 
an integer, which possesses the riylit, the proprietorship of the power; never to the mere 
power itself 



14 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction^ [T. 2. 

Possibly Mr. Loring's " therefore " is well placed in that second 
paragraph ; but quite probably it will be found, as he intimates, 
that the Constitution is less an instrument to define political 
terms, than to use them according to their ordinary meaning in 
political science, applying them to very practical purposes. And 
if Mr. Loring intends here to present Senator Sumner's theory, 
that the seceded States are tabulce rascB, it will be found that a 
State is a State, whether conquered or not ; and that if we ex- 
pect to preserve our own freedom and independence, we must 
restore these prerogatives of independence and freedom to the 
seceded States, as soon as we have assurance that it can be done 
with safety, and receive them back into our Union. But 
whatever confidence may be placed in the Government, however 
highly revered may be the Constitution, this is no work which 
these State Sovereignties have ever deputed to any Agency, and 
one in regard to which they must take specific action themselves. 

As to the mottoes of the United States and of Illinois, concern- 
ing which Mr. Loring is silent, standing alone, they would not 
be very certain authority. But for pithy expression of truth, 
they are scarcely excelled; and being in perfect harmony with 
our fundamental documents, it seems my privilege to use them 
until the latter shall be proved unsound. There is nothing 
partly about them, at all events. They are either glorious 
truths, to be enshrined in our heart of hearts, or pernicious false- 
hoods, to be derided and obliterated ; and as Mr. Loring's argu- 
ment or mine shall be believed and held to, will they stand or 
fall. 

With such documents and insignia, we ought to be agreed 
both as to the theory and practice of our Governments. Yet 
we are not ; and even is the fundamental principle — 

§ 5. State Sovereignty thb chief Occasion op Difference. 

If there be any basis for Mr. Loring s heading of " State 
Rights," it exists in State Sovereignty. And if we be a 
Federal Republic, as I aflEirm, and as the fathers believed, it is 
because each of these States is sovereign. Yet the main dispute 
— and it is worthy of remark that it runs all the way back to 
the origin of these States — is concerning this fundamental 
principle. I hold that from the date of separation from the 
mother-land, each one of the Thirteen Colonies has always 
been, is now, and ever must be, until a complete revolution is 



§ 5.] State Sovereignty the chief Occasion of Dijference. 15 

effected, a sovereign, free and independent State ; and that as 
such they are united by Federal compact, creating the Nation 
of the United States. 

Mr. Loring, on the contrary, declares right counter to his 
heart and heading : — 

[6^] But, in truth, the inliabitants of no one of these United States ever had political 
existence as a sovereign, free, and independent State, possessing any external or inter- 
national sovereignly ; or ecer had any distinct separate nationality.^ 

The inhabitants of them were always, from the beginning, the people, or por- 
tions of the people, of one empire, which alone maintained and exercised interna- 
tional sovereignty, and upon whose protection and supreme authority, as such, they 
relied. 

In short, the inhabitants of them have always been substantially, as under the 
Constitution they now are, one people. 

To prove the error of Mr. Loring's assertion, the substance 
of which is that we are and ever have been under one National 
Sovereignty, and the truth of my contrary assertion above, is the 
object of this argument; in pursuing which we shall find — 

§ 6. Correct Definitions of Words essential. 

Said the great statesman of Massachusetts, in reply to 
Calhoun : — 

Was it Mirabeau, or some other master of the human passions, who has told 
us that words are things ? They are indeed things, and things of mighty influ- 
ence, not only in addresses to the passions and high-wrought feelings of mankind, 
but in the discussion of legal and political questions also ; because a just conclu- 
sion is often avoided, or a false one reached, by the adroit substitution of one 
phrase, or one word, for another. — Webster's Woi-ks, iii. 453. 

Therefore is a precise knowledge of the terms used in an 
investigation indispensable ; and in none more so than in the 
profound science of politics ; and especially upon the compli- 
cated subject of Reconstruction. Herein are " clear, definite," 
and correct ideas of the chief terms, State and Sovereig-ntp, of 
the highest consequence, constituting, indeed, the main pre- 
mises. So that Hobbes, in the " Leviathan," treating of Reason 
and Science, remarks : — 

The first cause of absurd conclusions I ascribe to the want of method ; in 

^ Mr. Loring says in a foot-note, the only one to his second paper — "All italicizing is by 
the writer of this article, unless it be otherwise stated." This writer is more fortunate, the 
case being directly reversed as to the quotations from our Author. The truth is that Mr. 
Loring's heart is in such close unison with State Rights, which he takes for his head, 
though it is not always in his head ; that he naturally emphasizes wherever the views favor 
that doctrine, which is not seldom; though occasionally his theory moves him to make 
adverse ideas prominent. Indeed, with my ardent devotion to State rights, I could scarcely 
have improved upon Mr. L's. italicizing. Watch it and see. 



16 Reply to Mr. Loring ujyon " Reconstruction.'" [T. 2. 

tliat they begjin not tlicir ratiocination from definitions ; tliat is, from settled signi- 
fications of their words ; as if they could cast account, without knowing the value 
of the numeral words, one, two, and three. 

Giving six other causes of absurdity, this profound thinker 

adds : — 

By this it appears, that reason is not, as sense and memory, born with us ; nor 
gotten by experience only, as prudence is ; but attained by industry ; first in apt 
imposing of names ; and secondly, by getting a good and orderly method in pro- 
ceeding from the elements, which are names, to assertions made by connection of 
one of them to another; and so to syllogisms, which are the connections of one 
assertion to another, till we come to a knowledge of all the consequences of names 
ajipertaining to the subject in hand ; and that is it, men call science. 

Mr. L., therefore, observes . — 

[7-] In such a discussion, it is necessary that we have a clear and definite under- 
standing of the meaning of the word " State," as used in the Constitution, and as 
it should be used in any argument concerning it. There is a great deal of vague 
impression and loose talk about tlie States of the Union as being sovereign, free, 
and independent; affording shelter for much sophistry and declamation, tending to 
obscure a sul)ject which, above all others of the day, demands careful analysis and 
i-alm reasoning. 

Adding the little word not between "as" and "being," the 
reader may adopt that statement, with the additional affir- 
mation, that not only correctness " should be used in any argu- 
ment concerning it," but it is no argument, and mere jargon 
without that correct use of words. 

And here it may be conceded that Mr. L. uses those impor- 
tant words according to popular acceptation, and as defined by 
Worcester or Webster. But a full definition of such scientific 
terms is not to be expected in an ordinary dictionary ; and a 
quotation like Worcester's from Story and Bouvier to define 
Sovereignty, if found in conflict with higher authorities, is to be 
disregarded. The popular acceptation of these definitions, with 
the erroneous syllogisms resulting, is precisely what should be 
combated ; and those who hold with Mr. Loring to these popu- 
lar notions, must produce recognized and adequate authorities 
therefor, as I shall endeavor to do for my own. 

Besides, the entire science, and even the elementary truths of 
both politics and religion, consist of ideas embodied in lan- 
guage, which is also imperfect. It is therefore not surprising 
that in the science, and yet more in the art, of either, the best 
of men should be quite imperfect; of which not only will this 
essay exhibit an example, but even — 



§7.] Mr. Loring's Definition includes a Confederacy of States. 17 



§ 7. Mr. Loring's Definition of State includes a Confed- 
eracy OF States. 

[8'] The simple dcfiiiition of a State, politically speaking, is a i)eople inhabiting 
a definite territory, and possessing an organized government to which they owe 
obedience; and this definition applies exactly to the several States of the Union. 
But tliere are various kinds of such States. 

Some are possessed of absolute sovereignty, both internal and external, having 
not only entire control over the municipal relations and affairs of their subjects, 
bat also unlimited power over their external relations to other nations. These 
constitute and are universally recognized as individual nations, or members of the 
family of nations. 

There are others, which, existing as independent communities and possessing 
supreme authority internally over their subjects, have nevertheless no separate 
national sovereignty, but are united with other States by a common league or com- 
pact, by which their external or national sovereignty is committed to a central 
authority, representing them unitedly as one nation ; they separately neither 
claiming, nor being recognized, to be distinct members of the family of nations. 

Sucli States cannot be denominated sovereign, free, and independent States in 
any general or seemingly appropriate use of those terms, — not being so in the 
most important elements of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence; namely, 
those of national power and relationship to other nations. 

Mr. Loring's right to define his words to suit himself in sus- 
taining his argument, whether sound or unsound, may not be 
questioned for fear of a like mishap with that which Barbeyrac 
says befell critics of Grotius : — 

Thus all the criticisms of the commentators fall to the ground ; who do not con- 
sider, that our author was at full liberty to define his terms as he pleased ; provided 
he always fixes the same ideas to them, and reasons on them conclusively. — Gm. 
B. I., c. 3, § 1, n. 1. 

Mr. Loring sticks as well to his definitions as to his premises. 
But if he adopt definitions counter to those of the chief authori- 
ties in political science, it is not surprising, according to Hobbes, 
that his sentences and syllogisms and conclusions should have 
corresponding variance from their established principles. If there 
be this variation, the reader will discover it by comparing the ex- 
tracts from him with those from other authorities ; and it will 
then rest with Mr. Loring to produce his own authorities of 
equal or greater weight for his definitions. 

But not being prepared to rely upon those authorities in this 
argument as fully as might and should be desired, we find an 
admitted test of the soundness of Mr. L.'s definitions and of his 
use of the chief words, in our fundamental documents and the 
lacts in our history ; a comparison of which, will, I trust, prove 
the correctness of the above head, and also of the following, as — 

2 



18 Reply to Mr. Loritig upon "• Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

§ 8. A TRUE Definition of State. 
By State I mean that natural unit of human existence, which 
is indispensable to that political animal — TroAiTiK-or ^woV — man; 
and without which, according to Aristotle, he " is either a god or 
a beast." It is that human body politic, concerning the origin 
of which so much breath has been wasted by those who discard 
the necessity and fact of a Divine revelation, and concerning 
which origin no certain knowledge can be acquired but by fur- 
ther revelation ; and which the Bible and Aristotle assume as a 
fixed fact. It is the primal source, under the Sovereignty of 
Heaven, of all social rights ; and is emphatically that whole which, 
as Aristotle argues, " must necessarily be prior to the parts." A 
part of a thing cannot be conceived of until the whole exists. It 
is what the Greeks called ttoAis or TroA-ireta, and the Latins respub- 
lica or civitas ; and finds its truest, best rendering in English, in 
that noble word, Commonwealth. It is that about which Pufen- 
dorf thus begins his 7th book : — 

After those which are termed primary societies,^ we come now to treat of a 
Commonwealth [civitas], which is the last and most perfect form of society, and that 
whereby the best provision is made for the safety of mankind, since their in- 
crease. 

Aristotle, too, remarks in his " Politics," Book L, c. 2: — 

But when many villages join themselves perfectly together into one societj', 
that society is a State, (ttoXis,) and contains in itself, if I may so speak, the perfec- 
tion of independence ; and it is first founded that men may live, but continued that 
they may live happily .^ For which reason every State is the work of nature, since 

1 Pufendorf having methodically deduced the principles applicable to man in all his rela- 
tions to his fellow, has in the preceding sixth book applied them to the family : — 

" It follows in course that we examine the original and nature of human government, and that we 
observe what precepts of the Law of Nature and Nations do presuppose it. But inasmuch as Govern- 
ment cannot otherwise be conceived than between several persons, and since the Holy Scriptures inform 
as, that in the beginning God Almighty created one only human pair, the original parents of our race, 
it may seem necessary, before we proceed in our inquiry about civil power, to consider the relation of 
matrimony ; which being the source of private families, does, by consequence, supply matter for 
the comprising of all Sovereignties and States. For as the body of man is made up of divers members, 
each of which considered by itself, hath likewise in some sort the appearance of a body ; so States are 
formed out of lesser societies, of which some are called simple and primary, others compound, and as 
it were collegiate. Of the first sort are three, according to the threefold power of a husband, of a 
father, and of a master. And these have the name of simple, not because they consist of no more than 
two persons, as some maintain, but because they are not compounded of inferior societies. For why 
may not one father have more children, and one master more servants, and yet the societies thus con- 
stituted be as truly simple, as if each father had but a single child, each master but a single servant." 
— Book 6,0. 1, §1. 

2 To T«Aos, the end accomplished, Walford translates Governvient. This correctly exem- 
plifies English misconceptions; most of their modern teachers imagining Government itself 
to be the end, the source of power; whereas it is nothing more than the machinery by which 
the Supreme Power operates. But it is prudent to adopt Walford's for want of a better 
translation. 



^ 8.] A true Definition of State. 19 

the first social ties are such ; for to this they all tend as to an end, and the nature 
of a thing is judged by its tendency. For what every being is in its perfect state, 
that certainly is the nature of that being, whether it be a man, a horse, or a house. 
Besides, its own final cause and its end must be the perfection of any thing ; but a 
government i complete in itself constitutes a final cause and what is best. Hence 
it is evident, that a State is one of the works of nature, and that man is naturally a 
political animal [politikon zoon], and that whosoever is naturally, and not accident- 
ally, unfit for society, must be either inferior or superior to man ; just as the per- 
son reviled in Homer, — 

" No tribe, nor slate, nor home hath he." 

For he whose nature is such as this, must needs be a lover of strife, and as solitary 
as a bird of prey. It is clear, then, that man is truly a more social animal than 
bees, or any of the herding cattle ; for nature, as we s.ay, does nothing in vain, and 
man is the only animal who has reason. Speech, indeed, as being the token of 
pleasure and pain, is imparted to other beings also, and thus far their nature ex- 
tends ; they can perceive pleasure and pain, and can impart these sensations to 
others ; but speech is given us to express what is useful or hurtful to us, and also 
what is just and unjust ; for in this particular man differs from other animals, that 
he alone has a perception of good and evil, of justice and injustice, and it is the 
interchange of these common sentiments which forms a family and a city [State]. 
And further, in the order of nature, the State is prior to the family or the individ- 
ual ; for the whole must necessarily be prior to the parts ; for if you take away the 
whole body, you cannot say a foot or a hand remains, unless by equivocation, as if 
any one should call a hand made of stone, a hand ; for such only can it have when 
mutilated. But any thing is defined according to its effects and inherent powers, sO 
that when these no longer remain such as they were, it cannot be said to be the 
same, but something of the same name. It is plain, then, tiiat the State is prior to 
the individual, for if an individual is not complete in himself, he bears the same re- 
lation to the State as other parts do to a whole ; but he that is incapable of society, 
or so complete in himself as not to want it, makes no part of a State, but is either a 
beast or a god. . 

But not only the science of politics being imperfect, but also 
the language whereby the ideas are conveyed, difficulties in- 
crease ; and these are multiplied by careless use of words. The 
important words State and Nation, ought to have " clear and 
definite" meaning, so that they might always be understood 
with exactness ; but they cannot, being used interchangeably, 
yet having different significations. It therefore seems necessary 
to remark, that while every State which is free and independent, 
is truly and literally a Nation, and a perfect one, every Nation is 
not a perfect State, but may be, as in a Federal Republic, an 
agglomeration of States ; the Nation not being complete in 
itself, because it possesses no soul of its own, no Sovereignty. 
So, too, a Nation which is a perfect State, that is, has its own 
soul, its Sovereignty, may consist of several States. These, how- 

1 That is a most important truth in politics, thus summarily presented. The State, — and 
much more a subordinate Government, — failing to accomplish this object of its institution, 
the right of revolution comes in, as we set forth in our Declaration of Independence. 



20 Reply to Mr. Loring ujyon " Beconstr nation.'" [T. 2 

ever, are not free and independent, but subordinate, as Castile 
and Arragon became subordinates of Spain; England and Scot- 
land, upon James, King of the latter, inheriting the crown of the 
former, were by him incorporated as the State or Nation of 
Great Britain. Wales and Ireland were conquered States of 
England, continuing to be separate States, until the former was 
incorporated with England, with no change of name; and until 
the latter was incorporated with Great Britain, under the new 
name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' 
The Colonies, too, of any State become integral parts of that 
State, as were these a part of the State of Great Britain ; each 
Colony being an individual State with its separate Government, 
as were England and Scotland prior to the reign of Anne, and 
each alike subject to the Sovereign of the State of Great Britain. 

Well would it be if the word State were restricted to the sub- 
ordinate or constituent parties, and Nation applied solely to the 
larger body politic, whether sovereign or not. But such is not 
the case ; and Vattel, one of the most technical in his language, 
applies them indiscriminately, as will be seen in the original 
French, but not in the English translations of his " Law of Na- 
tions." To obtain " clear, definite," and correct ideas of the 
different kinds of Nations and States, so that the terms may be 
used understand ingly, will be far easier than to correct the num- 
berless works in various languages in which the terms are used ; 
and as we proceed it will be found indispensable to a sound 
argument concerning them. 

But by a State we do not conceive of an actual body like that 
of an individual Citizen. Although a body politic, it is nothing 
that we can see, nor handle, nor feel ; as we can perceive its 
instruments, which are human, and its effects, which are real. 
The Latin word status, condition, gives the true idea of State ; 
it being that natural /orw or condition which humanity seeks for 
its perfection. As Pufendorf says, " it is the last and most 
perfect /orw of society;" and as Aristotle better said, it is " the 
perfection of independence ; and it is first founded that men 
may live ; but continued that they may live happily." It is the 
natural status or condition of this political animal, man ; and to 

1 It was a misnomer to say, United Kingdom, for It was not a mere union or joininq to- 
gether of States, but a nestruction of the separate bodies politic, consolidating the constitu- 
ent elements into another body politic, another Nation, and even taking for it a new name, 
though in short still styled Great Britain. But every formal manifesto of Victoria, is in her 
name as Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelmid. 



§ 8.] A true Definition of State. 21 

this imaginary condition are the words applied ; so that the 
whole science of politics consists of ideas embodied in language. 
This important truth needs constantly to be borne in mind. 

Yet though ideal, the truth is a reality, and is actually em- 
bodied in words, and we conceive of this status^ condition, State, 
as having form, organization, being correctly styled a body poli- 
tic and corporate ; and of such preeminence is this above all 
other human bodies politic, all other conceivable conditions of 
man, that it is fortunately in our language, the French, German, 
etc., entitled the State. Like the human body, each one of these 
has its life-giving principle, its soul. To understand this, we 
must have — 

§9. Sovereignty defined — its Nature and Exercise. 

Mr. Loring seems to have deemed a definition of Sovereignty 
unnecessary. Had he given one, he would probably have found 
desirable a revision of some of the authorities with which he is 
doubtless familiar, instead of adopting views at second-hand, as 
he must have done to have made some of his statements. That 
reinvestigation, which is the main point for which we should con- 
tend, would probably have considerably modified this elaborate 
argument. 

But if Mr. Loring's individual opinion, and his own particular 
use of a word, will give it currency, and suffice to establish his 
resulting syllogisms as sound truth, my position is less fortunate. 
If not essential to his views, a pretty full definition of this fun- 
damental term in political science is indispensable to a proper 
understanding of my notions. 

Worcester's definition is correct as far as it goes, though it 
conflicts with his final declaration from Bouvier and Story. But 
Goodrich's Webster, changed from the original to accord with 
popular ideas rather than scientific principles, says it is " the ex- 
ercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power." The first clause 
is positively contradicted. The exercise of Sovereignty merely 
constitutes power, authority, command. But Sovereignty itself 
is in truth and precision the right, the proprietorship, of that 
command, authority, power. Vattel well and definitely styles it 
le droit de commander, the Right of Command, and the Latin, 
fus snmmi hnperii, the Right of supreme Command, which in our 
grand mother-tongue is expressed by the single word, Sover- 
eignty. And in the prosecution of my work, abundant Ameri- 



22 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction. "" [T. 2. 

can authorities for this statement will be produced. Just now 
we have to do with the more eminent. 

This Sovereignty, or Right of Command, exists in every 
State, governing everything in the body politic ; and like the 
soul in the natural body, gives life and energy to this most per- 
fect of civil bodies. The possession of this Sovereignty by the 
collective body of the Citizens of that State, the many, consti- 
tutes a Democracy ; by the few, an Aristocracy ; by the owe, a 
Monarchy. 

Like the soul it is indivisible ; yet in the employment of its 
various powers, its exercise is divisible, and we conceive it as 
operating in its legislative, judicial, executive, or other func- 
tions.^ While, too, it holds the Right of these powers in its 
own possession, it may delegate the exercise of them at its dis- 
cretion ; these, like all delegates, being mere agents, and account- 
able to the party delegating. Such is the imperfection of hu- 
manity, that experience has ever proved that the greater the dis- 
tribution of this exercise, especially the more perfect the checks 
of these subordinate Agents upon each other, the more perfect is 
the Administration. 

But while this will hold good in each of the three forms, it is 
emphatically true concerning Democracies. Hence in these 
States the Sovereign Peoples have shown their wisdom by divid- 
ing up the exercise in their State Governments to coordinate de- 
partments, dividing the most dangerous, the legislative, into two" 
branches. They have further subdivided down to agents in 
counties, towns, and school districts. This principle of Repre- 
sentation is what has come in modern parlance to be styled 
Repuhlicanism, 

But these States, although most of them are the largest De- 
mocracies ever instituted, could not individually preserve their 
Sovereignty, Freedom and Independence, and deemed it wise 
to unite, creating themselves into another body politic, a Federal 

1 So, too, it is quite well, for certain purposes of explanation, to speak of internal and ex- 
ternal Sovereignty, as do Mr. Loiing, Wheaton, &c., provided we have correct conceptions 
that the Sovereignty itself is indivisible. The qualities, attributes, or parts of a thing are 
one matter; the thing itself another. This Mr. Loring too well apprehends to make it sup- 
posable that he designs to make the difference between internal and external Sovereignty 
a fundamental question. lie as a Unitarian holds to the indivisibility of God's Sovereigntv, 
as do all true Christians. Yet we Trinitarians think we can also recognize the truth that in 
its exercise, God's Right of Command is divided to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
Heavenly, is it exercised in celestial spheres; earthly, on this planet; as we consider that of 
the State according to the object of its employment, either internal or external. 



§ 9.] Sovereignty defined — its Nature and Exercise. 28 

Republic, a Nation ; delegating to their joint Agents the exercise 
of several of their most important powers. While in this man- 
ner effectually providing for their safety from foreign aggression, 
they also best guarded against the usurpation of their Sover- 
eignty by any of these Agents, all the others being stringent 
watchers against undue encroachment of any one ; the two sets 
of State and Federal Agents proving to be the most perfect sys- 
tem of checks and balances ever devised. So that this distribu- 
tion of the exercise of their Sovereignty, which these States under 
Providential direction judiciously adopted, renders our system 
that which is known in political science by the name of Federal 
Republican Democracy. 

Such is our system ; yet precisely as Grotius wrote nearly two 
and a half centuries ago in his immortal work which is the 
foundation of the modern system of International Law : — 

It will be necessary to be thoroughly informed, what this Sovereignty is, and in 
whom it resides ; and so much the more, because learned men in our age, each of 
them handling this argument rather according to the present interest of the affairs 
of his country, than according to truth, have made that which was of itself not very 
clear, much more perplexed. — B. I., c. 3, § 5. 

Emphatically is this true of nearly every writer upon Govern- 
ment for a century past. Pufendorf having more scientifically 
and thoroughly than any other author, ancient or modern, elu- 
cidated this important subject, extracts will be made from his 
great work, the '' Law of Nature and Nations." 

§ 10. Pufendorf upon Sovereignty. 

In Book 7, chap. 1, Pufendorf considers The impelling' Causes 
of establishing Stales, (civitates) ; in chap. 2, The inward Struc- 
ture of Civil Slates; and in chap. 3, The Generation of Sover- 
eig-nty (summi imperii), or the Majesty of the State (civilis 
majestatis), observing : ^ — 

Let us proceed to examine wlience that Sovereignty or Supreme Command, 
which appears in every State, and which, as a kind of soul, informs, enlivens, and 
wields the public body, is immediately produced, &c. 

Though this and the preceding chapters are important to a 
thorough understanding of what follows, space cannot here be 
taken for extracts. In chap. 4, he treats of The Parts of Sover- 

1 Kennett's translation is used, though it has many imperfections, as I do not care to take 
upon myself the responsibihty of a new rendering, except as to the heads, which seem to be 
worse translated than the text. 



24 Reply to Mr. Loring upon "■ Reconstruction y [T. 2. 

eignty and their natural Connection, and in § 1, In ivhat Sense the 
Supreme Poioer may be said to consist of Parts, remarks : — 

The Supreme Civil Authority, though in its own nature it be one indivisible 
thing, yet because it exerts itself in different acts, according as it is employed about 
different means, necessary to the preservation of the State, is generally conceived 
as consisting of many parts ; with resemblance to those parts which are termed 
potential, in natural philosophy. For the Sovereign Command is by no means 
such an entire compound being, as is made up of heterogeneous parts, which as 
they are joined and knit together, as by some common band, compose one body, 
yet so that each part is capable of subsisting separately by itself. But as the soul 
is one single substance, dispensing life and vigor through tlie whole body, and yet 
as it exerciseth different operations, in proportion to the difference of the objects 
presented to it, or of the organs through which it works, is conceived as having 
potential parts ; so, in like manner, the Supreme Authority, as it is busied in pre- 
scribing general rules of action, is termed the Legislative Power; as it determines 
the controversies of the subjects by the standard of those rules, it is the Judiciari/ 
Power ; as it either arms the subjects against foreigners, or commands them to lay 
down their hostility, it is the Power of \Va)- and Peace ; as it takes in the assist- 
ance of ministers in tlie discharge of public business, it is called the right or power 
of appointing Magistrates ; and so with regard to its other offices and functions, 
&c. 

Having treated of these various powers, he in § 9 considers 
that Authority draws together stronger than bare Compact, observ- 
ing:— 

Our next business is to show, that these parts of the Sovereign Power are nat- 
urally so united, and, as it were, so interwoven with one another, that should we 
suppose some of them to inhere in one person, some in others, the regular power 
of the State must absolutely be destroyed. Which truth, that we may thoroughly 
apprehend, it ought to be observed, that there are, above all others, two bands 
especially, by which the wills of many men, or of voluntary [independent] societies, 
[coetuum i-olwttates] are closed and made to conspire into one ; Covenant [pai'Anm\ and 
Command [imperium] ; of which, nevertheless, the latter adds a much stronger tie 
than the former. They who are held together bj' bare covenant, stand obliged by 
the Law of Nature voluntarily to perform the terms of agreement ; their natural 
equality, in other respects, remaining as before. Now, so long as the articles are 
on both sides observed, a fair union and concord may continue amongst them. 
And when any one party, with a wicked design, flies from the engagement, he is 
guilty of a breach of the Law of Nature. But then the rest, whose interest it was 
that the covenant should remain inviolable, have no means left of reducing the false 
brother to reason but mere force of arms, in which he who offered the injury is 
frequently not inferior to him that received it. After the same manner, they, who 
upon equal terms stand bound to each other by virtue of some league or confeder- 
acy [as do these States], are at peace and agreement so long as each party makes 
good what he promised ; but when either proves perfidious, the bond of Union is 
dissolved, and an occasion of hostility ensues, &c. 

Pufendorf, though generally correct both in theory and prac- 
tice, sometimes fails in the proper application of his principles. 
One of his chief mistakes, as I conceive, and of highest moment 
for these Citizens to well apprehend, is the strength of covenant. 



§ 10.] Pufendorf upon Sovereignty. • 25 

As to all human as well as Divine institutions, it is the corner- 
stone ; and except as to the point of authority over individuals, 
which is consequent upon man's individual depravity, is a vastly 
stronger ligament than Sovereignty. Pufendorf does not al- 
ways sufficiently recognize the difference in man's nature as an 
individual, and as a body politic, a State. This it is essential 
that we thoroughly understand, in this Nation of free and inde- 
pendent Sovereignties, over whom it is impossible to have a 
Right of Command without their destruction. 

§ 10 treats of Wlio may properly be said to have Part in the 
Authorily (partem iinperium) ; and § 11 is upon The Connection 
of Parts in the Supreme Authority demonstrated : — 

From wliat we have laid down, it will be evident, that there is so near and so 
necessary a connection between all the parts of the Sovereignty, as that not one of 
them can be separated from any other, but the regular frame of tlio Commonwealth 
must be destroyed ; and instead of it an irregular body must start up, held together 
only by an infirm and ineffectual covenant. For if we appropriate the legislative 
power to one, and to anotlier tlie judiciary, each primarily and independently, it 
will of necessity follow, that either the former is null and void, or that the latter 
ministers only to the former, &c. 

§ 12 further illustrates the idea ; and § 13 is headed Although 
many cover over to divide these Parts : — 

Though the case be manifestly thus, as we have represented it, yet there is no 
inconsiderable number of men who stand up resolutely for the division of the Sov- 
ereign Power, that hereby they may frame I know not what mixture of Common- 
wealths, which being rigiitly tempered and qtialified must needs, forsooth, produce 
the most liappy system of government. They would gladly engage Aristotle to be 
of their party, but witliout effect ; he, in the place of his works which they allege, 
speaking of a mixture far different from any that can be applied to tlie parts of the 
Sovereignty. Which makes it seem the more strange, that some interpreters, (and 
Mich. Piccart among the rest,) put such things together, as probably never entered 
into the philosopher's head, &c. 

And what shall be said of our own philosophers, and the 
modern ones of Europe, who make no scruple about dividing the 
Sovereignty to suit their own superficial schemes ? Mr. Loring is 
much more consistent in his views, in making the whole People 
of the United States always and ever a Nation, however diffi- 
cult that task may be, than are the sapient philosophers, the 
other wing of the North, who endeavor to prove that we have 
by the Constitution generated that lusiis naturae, monstrum hor- 
rendum in political science, a double-headed or double-souled 
State. Mr. Loring's argument, it is true, compels to an actual 
division of the Sovereignty. But he has the sense to see the 
absurdity of this, and does his best to avoid the result, by 



26 Reply to Mr. Loring upon ''Reconstruction'' [T. 2. 

imagining a Nation preiixistent to the States, with paramount 
Sovereignty; in which he has advantage over other Consoli- 

dists. 

Pufendorf, with much force, concludes this chapter with 
§ 14, headed. Among whom (the dividers) is Grotius, whom we 
are to examine ; and he properly notices some mistakes of this 
great man, though he elsewhere more successfully confutes an- 
other mistake of his upon this same point, in the division of 
Rome into the eastern and western Empires. But if all con- 
ceivable mixtures, and any division of Sovereignty, be not as 
effectually provided against as is possible for philosophic argu- 
ment, particularly in the next chapter, I am no judge. Yet 
look at the teachings of the last century, especially of Britain 
and America. 

§ 11. Pufendorf upon the different Forms of States. 

This is the head of chapter 5 ; and § 1 is upon The Accidents 
of States (civitatum) do not constitute a new Species, which mod- 
ern philosophers may profitably consider: — 

The sovereign authority, [summum imperiuni,] besides that it inheres in each 
State, as in a common or general subject ; i so, farther, according as it resides either 
in one person, [constituting a Monarchy,] or in a council, consisting of some or of 
all the members, [the former an Aristocracy, the latter a Democracy,] as in a proper 
or particular subject, it produces different forms of Commonwealths, [nrumpuUi- 
caruin.] And here, ere we proceed to inquire into this variety, we take it for 
granted that we have free leave to retain the word form, when we would express 
that constitution or model of State, which ariseth from the difference of the sub- 
ject, in which the supreme power is primarily or originally seated. That the actual 
administration - of the Government recedes, in many cases, from the particular form, 
is a thing commonly known ; as in Democracy, for instance, some affairs are man- 
aged in the way of Monarchy, others in the way of Polyarchy [Aristocracy] ; ac- 
cording as business is committed to the care of one person, or to such a number of 
commissioners. And because it is a matter of great consequence, whether the power 
any man exerciseth be his own, or whether it be another's, of which he may at 
any time be deprived, holding it only by a precarious title ; ^ therefore it is great 

1 Pufondovf here gives Grotius a sly hit for his error of putting the Sovereignty into a 
common anA a. proper subject; an idea the infidels of the last century adopted, and into 
which even T)r. Lieber lias fallen in his " Political Ethics;" imagining that it always ex- 
ists in the People, making a Sovereign Senate, or a Monarch, merely Ministers of the State; 
thus destroying the fundamental difference in the three forms of Government. 

2 The reader will observe the nice and important distinction made between frrm and 
administration. The administration is merelv the means of exercising, operating the Sov- 
ereignty; the form is the method by which the Sovereignty itself, the Right of Command, 
is actually possessed. The one resolves itself into the source of authority, the other the 
machinery of Government. 

3 It does not necessaril}' follow that power is held b}' a " precarious title," because tlu! 
right of it belongs to another, to one who has true conception of the strength of covenant, 
In our Federal Government, though the title beheld undoubtedly by these Sovereign States, 



§ 11.] Pufendorf upon the Different Forms of States. 27 

want of accuracy in a certain author to aflBrm, " that when a king suffers himself 
to be led by the nose by some few counsellors, who abuse the easiness of his 
temper, or a people by some powerful demagogue, or when in a ruling Senate one 
member leads the rest by his wisdom or eloquence, or overawes them by his inter- 
est and strength ; a Polyarchy is really introduced in the first of these cases, and a 
Monarchy in the two latter ; and that in the first case there is nothing but an empty 
name, and outward semblance of Monarchy, in the second of democracy, in the 
third of Polyarchy, or Aristocracy." Thus, also, no intelligent person will imagine 
the form of a Commonwealth to be altered upon a change either in the persons, 
or in the number of ministers ; i no more than he will think that when a new suc- 
cessor banisheth from his councils and presence, one who was chief minister under 
the former prince, and had the management of all affairs, an interregnum must 
hereupon occur. The capacity and inclination of him or them, who either by their 
own right or by delegacy from others, exercise the Sovereign Power, do indeed affect 
and vary their administration, but do by no means touch the form of Government, 
etc. 

§ 12. Pufendorf concerning a Federal Republic. 

The reader who is willing to admit that Politics is a Science, 
and has e.stablished principles, will have satisfaction in seeing 
some of those relating to a Federal Republic, to compare them 
with our system. And even others will see that possibly Mr. 
Loring may be mistaken in his chief statements. 

To exhibit the connection of the previouts extracts with those 
following, the heads are given of chapter 5, — Upon the different 
Forms of States, from which we have last had, § 1, The Accidents 
of States do 7iot constitute anew Species; § 2, treats Of irregular 
Forms and Systems (Confederacies) of States; ^ o, The three 
Forms of regular States ; § 4, Democracy seems to be the most ati^ 
dent Form; § 5, In Democracy is no less Supreme Power than in 
Monarchy ; § 6, Democracy, hoio constituted ; § 7, The ordinary 
requisites of Democracy ; § 8, Hoiv Aristocracy is established ; 
§ 9, And how Monarchy ; § 10, In States there occur Vices of 
Men and Vices of Condition (siatus') ; §11, Yet these constitute not 
a peculiar Species of State ; § 12, As neither do the various Acci- 
dents of Democracies and Aristocracies ; § 13, Of the Mixed States 
(mixta republica) of the moderns, and the more modern are still 
more absurd ; § 14, In ivhat consists the fiature of Irregular 
States ; § 15, This Irregularity best illustrated by Examples ; § 16, 

the power of the United States rests upon no " precarious title," no more than does the 
State Government; indeed far less so, because change is more difficult. 

1 Yet nearly all our northern teachers imagine a revolution was made by our present Con- 
stitution; the onlj' change of which was iu the mode of administration, creating different 
Departments, and extending authority over commerce, and to the individual subjects of the 
State. According to their conceptions, it even made the United States for the tirst time a 
Nation, giving Sovereignty to the whole People of the Union. But Mr. Loring escapes this 
fallacy, clanning Sovereignty in the Nation even antecedent to that of the States. 



28 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

Hates which admit of Provinces (as Great Britain and lier Colo- 
nies) do not hence become necessarily systematical ; § 17, Of Sys- 
tems (Confederacies) occasioned by a common Prince; § 18, Of 
Systems which are formed by Leag-uc, (foedere,) which is that of 
ours, for which space had best be taken to quote almost entire ; 
for to understand our system we must not only have " clear, 
definite," and correct ideas of a State and of Sovereignty, bijt 
also of what constitutes a Confederacy. 

The other kind of system ^ is when several States are joined to each other by 
a perpetual league or alliance [near/s] ; the chief occasion of wliich seems to have 
been, that each particular People loved to be their own masters, and yet each was 
not strong enough to make cause against a common enemy. Tlie purport of such 
an agreement usually is, that they shall not exercise some part of tlie Sovereignty 
there specified, without the general consent of each other. For the leagues to 
which these systems owe their rise, seem distinguished from others (so frequent 
amongst different States) chiefly by this consideration : that in the latter each Con- 
federate People determine themselves by their own judgment to certain mutual 
performances, yet so as that, in all other respects, they design not in the least to 
make the exercise of that part of the Sovereignty, wherein those performances 
proceed, dependent on the consent of their allies, or to retrench any thing from 
their full and unlimited power of governing their own States.'^ Thus we see tliat 
ordinary treaties propose, for the most part, as their aim, only some particular ad- 
vantage of the States tlius transacting; tlieir interests happening at present to fall 
in with each other, but do ^^^ produce any lasting union as to the chief manage- 
ment of affairs. Whereas in those leagues we are now speaking of, the contrary is 
observable ; tliey being carried on with this design, that the several States shall 
forever ^ link their safety one within the other, and in order to this mutual defence, 
shall engage themselves not to exercise certain parts of their Sovereign Power, 
otherwise than by a common agreement and approbation. For the promises made 
in the two cases here compared, run in very different terms ; in the former thus : 
' I will join you as a Confederate in this particular war, and the manner of our at- 
tacking the enemy shall be concerted by our common advice ; ' in the latter thus : 
' None of us, who have entered into this alliance, will make use of our right, as to 
the affair of peace and war, except by the general consent of the whole Confeder- 
acy.' We observed before, that these Unions submit only some certain parts of the 
Sovereignty to mutual direction. For it seems liardly possible, that the affairs of 
different States shall have so close a connection as that all and each of them must 
look on it as their interest to have no part of the chief Government exercised witii- 

1 Sysietnal.icum, from si^rrj^ta, " a whole compounded of several parts or members, a com- 
plex whole. 2. A body of persons leagued by the same laws, institutions, etc., regular gov- 
ernment, established power, confederacy," etc. — Lidd. and Scott's Lex. 

2 Has not the effort, from the very beginning of our Independence, been to effect pre- 
cisely what is here presented as the object of a Confederacy? Do not the debates concern- 
ing the Constitution, prove that the whole opposition to it was based upon the idea that it 
either did in fact, or would by practice, destroy State Sovereignty and bring Consolidation? 
Is it not incumbent on those claiming that the fathers failed in their intention, and that 
what they feared has resulted, to show how and when the fundamental change was made? 
Their task is even more difficult tlian Mr. Loring's. 

3 This is one of the compacts that is in its nature perpetual. Hence, it was a superfluity 
in the Articles of Confederation, to so declare, as they did six times, which was properly 
omitted in the new compact of National Union. 



§ 12.] Pufendorf co7icerning a Federal Republic. 29 

out the general concLirrence. Or, if there be any communities thus mutually de- 
pending, it h:id been the wiser course for them, rather to have incorporated them- 
selves under the same Government, than to rely on the bare engagement of a 
league. 1 The most convenient method therefore seems to be, that the particular 
States reserve to themselves all those branches of the Supreme Authority, the man- 
agement of which can have little or no influence (at least directly) on the affairs 
of the rest. The same must be said of such public business, as either occurs every 
day, or else requires so speedy measures as to prevent a general debate. But then 
as to all affairs on which the safety of the allies hath a joint dependence, these 
ought in reason to be adjusted by common constitution. And in this number war, 
whether offensive or defensive, seems to claim the first place; after that, peace, as 
the result and issue of war. To which we may add ta.xes and subsidies,- as they 
contribute to the mutual support ; and alliances with foreign States, as they pro- 
mote the common safety. It falls under the same head of duties, that in case any 
dispute arise amongst the Confederates themselves, the other members wlio are 
unconcerned shall immediately interpose their mediation, and not suffer the con- 
troversy to come to blows.* Thus the wise Prince, Philip of Macedon, declares 
in the historian [Polybius], that 'the mutual wrongs of his allies so particularly 
concerned himself, as that he could not but use his best endeavors for a compo- 
sition, by words to the present, and by letters to the absent parties ; whereas those 
other dangers or injuries, which affected the whole Confederacy, belonged to the 
care of the common assembly, and were thence only to receive their proper re- 
dress.' As for other matters, which seem not so necessary to be transacted in 
common, as negotiations of traffic, subsidies for the particular occasion of any 
single State, the constituting of magistrates, the enacting of laws, the power of life 
and death over the respective subjects, the ecclesiastical authority, and the like, 
there is no reason but that they may be left to the pleasure of each distinct Gov- 
ernment;* though at the same time, particular States ought so to manage those 
privileges, as that they shall cause no disturbance in the general Union. Whence 
it is evident, that one or more of the allies cannot be hindered by the rest from 
exercising, according to their own judgment, such parts of the civil administration, 

1 Though in these extracts Pufendorf seems to make a Confederacy weak and impotent, 
it is only because he failed properly to apply his own principles to practice, in this method 
of Government. But the object here is not to defend a Federal Republic, or prove its excel- 
lences, easy and interesting as it is. The sole purpose in this little space must be to show 
that according to Political Science, we have a genuine Federal Republic; that is, a National 
Union of Free and Independent Sovereignties. We want first to know exactly what we 
have, and the principles upon which the Government is constituted. The consideration of 
its strength or imperfections can then be advantageously prosecuted. 

- This is one of the important changes in our Federal Government, which, it is claimed, 
revolutionized it. 

3 Under the first Constitution, Congress had this power imperfectly, which was remedied 
in the second by our Federal Judiciary, the best means ever devised for regulating the 
mistakes of imperfect rulers in law-abiding States, and all-sufficient for every difficulty we 
have ever had, had it only been properly emplo3'ed. 

* All these powers mii/lit, it is true, have been reserved; but upon several subjects we 
have with great success delegated to the Federal Agency concurrent jurisdiction with that 
of the State, and in case of conflict, made the Federal Constitution and Laws paramount. 
But has that created a Sovereignty over these States V In face of the fact that the chief 
powers of peace and war, coining money, &c., had been delegated by the first compact of 
Union, the second article of which distinctly proclaimed, in accordance with these principles 
of political science, tliat " each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence," 
surely should the Consolidist bring conclusive evidence that, witli tlie small transfer of au- 
thority "by the present Constitution, the Sovereignty was transferred. 



'SO R^^y f^' ^^- Lmimg %qnm ** Re^/m^truetionS'' [T. ± 

as -w«9^ r'»- ^' ''•^r ^ -c^ of allisnce, referred to the cotnTBon diroctJo-n." Yet as to 
the po^x^ . some scrn|»les may be Wiatie on aocoxmt of that pa^a^re 

in the C... .... ^ ■ ■?• • ~ * 1- ■P^ Cai^ir. et Poxfl'ir.." ■ Bi:t soroe 

persons, members c " .^. are here arraigrjo.'. t. and 

re^v^^-^.', '^^n- :i< ";v-, ■ ". T>;iTiishTnciit.' Gr" - :s.keTi a 

/TTfr - - ^'-hoeve^ thoroii^hir consideTS his 

disc^..:>^ -. - paTpose. For he eortainlr leaves 

the followimr question tinanswered. — How that Slate can entirely preserve its 
liberty, the sahjecxs of which aiie liable to be airaigTier. ..n ^c r another G-overritiert. 
and to be punished npon conviction 1 ^ 

§ 19. As to the Methx)d of Negotiaiion to .<; ; xiphyed bci'i:-itn 
th£m. advises : — 

Since in these systentis, it is necessary there shonld be a commnnication of cer- 
tain affiairs expressed in the leacnc. and since this cannot be done so conveniently 
by eiJhesr, a determinate time and place onfi-ht to be settled for the holdinir assem- 
blies, and one or more persons appointed, who shall have power to call the States 
together, in case of any extraordinary bnsiness, which will not admit of delay, 
Thongh it seems a mnch more compendions method, to fix a standing cotmdl, 
made tip of persons dcpnted by the several Confederates, who shall dispatch bnsi- 
ness of daily occnrrence, or of less importance, according to the tenor of thar 
commission ; who in matters of creater consequence shall make report to the Spates, 
and shall publish and execnte snch decrees as are returned to them on those occa- 
sions ; to whom the TOinisters of the Confedexacy in foreign pans shall give an im- 
mediate aeeoant of their proceedings, and who shall treat with the ambassadm^ of 
other nations, and conclude bnsiness in the general name of the Confederates ; bnt 

^ Thai impoTtant idea we prudently made secnre beyond peradventirre by the 10& 
amendment. And was any snch affair as the present provided for? 

2 Grotins. a citizen of the Dntch Confedenacy. had much more correct conceptions of a 
Federal ■Government than Pntendorf: but his ideas not being brought together as Pufeu- 
dorf^s, owing to his analytic treatment, are not so available here. 

To one properlv annrehending the difference between a State and its individual subjects, 
and to on - - :bf important truth, that all authority in these Free States is 

exercisec. - ~. it is not difficult to understand how these States have con- 

trived to i:i > .ir,-. .:i:;j:^i. Government complete juTfediction in certain cases, as well for 
the enacting of laws, as for judging of and punishing far their indacdon: and thai WTthont 
the least impairing of their SovereignTv. 

Thorough research will sarisiy any one. that Madison got his erroneous ideas as to the 
nationalizing of our Government, irom Pufendorf. The Convention at Philadelphia was 
in sad bewilde.mient upon the subject, when HamOton made his great speech — Hit speech 
of that immortal gathering — in which he said. " a Federal Govjoikmekt he conceived to 
mean an association of independent communities into one. Different Confederacies have 
different powers, and e^cercise them in different ways. In some instances, the powers are 
exercised over collective bodies, in others over individuals, as in the German Diet, and 
among ourstlves in cases of ptractt- f So that that mere Confederacy, as it is sneeringly 
calle.d. was actually a Gmemmeni. with power of lift and deaOi^ Great latitude, therefore, 
must be given to the signification of the term. The plan last proposed [Patterson's, r^ 
garded speeially Federal, in contradistinctaon to the Tinrinia or Ivaiional,] departs, itself. 
from the Federal idea, as understood by some, since it is to operate eventually on indi- 
viduals.''' 

Any one who criticalh- studies the debates of 178^89. especially ■Qie Federalist, will see 
that the father? themselves. Hamilton alone excepted, did not have clear conceptions of the 
nature of out Governments. The chief faults in Hamihon were, that he uses words some- 
times according to popular rather than scientific signification : and that he had no tiaidi in 
r>emocracv. 



§ 12.] Pufendorf concerning a Federal Republic. 31 

who shall determine nothing that exceeds the bounds of their commission, unless 
all the subjects have been first consulted on the point. How far the power of this 
Council of Delegates extends, is to be gathered either from the words of the league 
itself, or from the warrant by which they act. This is certain, that the power, 
whatever it be, is not their own, but derived to them from those whom they repre- 
sent ; and although the decrees which they publish pass solely under their own 
name. Hows from the States themselves, by whose consent such a council hath been 
created. So that the Deputies are no more than Ministers of the Confederate 
States, and are altogether as unable to enjoin any thing by their own proper author- 
ity, as an Ambassador is to command and govern his Master. 

Let this important trath be well apprehended, and it clears 
away a large part of the mystery concerning our system. We, 
to be sure, have contrived, by dividing up authority to coordi- 
nate Departments, far beyond what the Dutch understood, to 
create checks and balances, and thereby entrust the judgment of 
affairs in all ordinary cases, as safely to the Federal Agents as it 
could be anywhere. Only in regard to the change of the letter 
of authority of these Agents must reference be made to the 
Sovereignties themselves. How indispensable, however, for 
them ever to remember that it is only by delegation through 
the power of attorney of the Constitution, that they hold and 
exercise that power, the right of it belonging to these States. 

§ 13. Of Voting equally or according to Strength. — Op 
Binding the Minority. 

§ 20 considers the important point. Whether the greater Part 
ought here to oblige the less : — 

Yet it may still appear doubtful, whether or no the whole body of the associ- 
ates, or the majority of them, have not a power over particular States, or over 
those whom they exceed in number, with regard to such matters as were the first 
occasion of the alliance, and which by the express terms of the league were ap- 
pointed to be mauaged in a common assembly ; so far as that the few dissenting 
States shall be bound, though against their will, to do as the major part have de- 
termined. Here, in our opinion, the negative side of the question ouglit to be pre- 
ferred ; if we speak of regular systems, and when the particular States reserve to 
themselves the entire possession of their former liberty .^ Inasmuch as the lib- 
erty of a State, which is nothing else but the power of finally resolving and deter- 

1 This is another of Pufendorf 's misapplications of his own principles. The obligation 
depends solely upon the terms of the compact whereby the party is bound. The State, 
whether larger or smaller, that covenants that the voices of the several States, whether each 
have two, as in our Senate, or more, according to population, as in our House, is bound to the 
decision made in accordance with that covenant; not by virtue of a superior authority, but 
because of its voluntary engagement. Vattel best mastered this important truth, educed 
from other teachings of Pufendorf, Grotius, Wolf, &c., when he says, treating of this very 
question concerning a Federal Republic, "A person does not cease to be free and indepen- 
dent when he is obliged to fultil engagements very willingly contracted." 



32 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'" [T. 2. 

miiiin-, according to its own judgment, all matters in which its safety is concerned, 
cannot be understood, in case the State may, by virtue of tlie autliority held over 
it by some other, be compelled to certain performancds against its will.i Nor can 
any reason to the contrary be drawn from hence, that in the league it was agreed 
not to exercise some particular parts of the sovereignty there expressed, unless by 
common consent. For it is one thing to say, — I engage not to use my right un- 
less you are willing; and another to say, — I give you a power of compelling nu- 
to use my right, though against my inclination. Now the first of these forms is 
only implied in the league, not the latter. For the clearer apprehension of which 
point, it ought well to be observed, that when the wills of many persons are bound 
to conspire in one, this must arise either from a compact between them to tiiis effect, 
or because one of them liath submitted his will to the will of the other. An union 
or concurrence of wills, grounded on bare compact, doth not in the least destroy 
the liberty of wliich we have been now speaking. For they agree beforehand in 
settling those affairs, which are referred to their joint management; or if any new 
business offers itself to their debates, they desire to be influenced not by authority, 
but argument and reason.- But when I have submitted my will to the will of 
another, and by this means have given him a full authority over me, I may then 
be obliged to things which are very inconsistent with my good liking.^ Nor does 
the right of the majority, (which some may urge,) oppose our judgment in this 
case. For, first, The greater part draws the less only in bodies already constituted, 
not in those which are still to be established.* And then farther, the prerogative 
of the majority in a settled council to oblige the rest is owing to human compact 
and institution, not to nature; though natural reason advisetli the reception of this 

1 Of course every free and independent State must, in the final result, be its own inde- 
pendent judge of its action. The State itself is created, its Sovereignty generated, for the 
express and n;ain object of having an absolute right and power to judge of and to do all 
acts and tilings best calculated to promote the well-being of tliat State, duly regarding '■ the 
l.aws of Natin-e and of Nature's God." If it mal^e a contract contrary thereto, or injuri- 
ous to the State, or imperfect for its objects, it is not only its right, but its duty to break it. 
Hence, the eleven States in 1787-88, rightfully broke away from their first compact,." in 
order to form a more perfect Union." And we shall soon see that Pufendorf provides an 
adequate remedj'. 

2 "Argument and reason" would lead to right determination, but that States themselves 
are liable to err because of man's individual impert'ections and vicious nature. This it 
being impossible to remedy, we must make the best of human nature as it is, whether in 
the conduct of individual or State affairs; and to bring right conduct, nothing is equal to 
due deliberation. This is better secured by our system than any other; for, as Solomon 
says, " In the multitude of counsellors there is safety " ; and scarcely any important mat- 
ter is left to individual judgment. Pufendorf here raises no question as to what is posi- 
tively agreed, but as to what is not agreed. It is difhcult, however, always to determine 
what is or is not in the terms expressed, or necessarily implied; for in a compact* between 
States, much is left to implication, as the whole force of International Law. No one would 
think of writing that out, yet is it not only part and parcel of tiie agreement, but the cove- 
nant itself is based upon it. With the imperfection of language, too, the points designed to 
be definite are not so made, and occasions of difference occur. Now the question arises, how 
such a dispute .shall be decided, and the freedom and independence of the parties preserved. 

3 Pufendorf here leaves out of view an important thought he afterwards introduces, of 
the right of equals in a state of nature to enforce fulfilment of covenants. In a Confederacy 
the obligation rests, not upon a Sovereignty, a Riglit of Command above the parties, but 
upon the mutual obligations and rights generated betweeti them by compact. 

* That is to us, an essential truth, which we should firmly hold. This Nation of ours 
was created by the first compact of Union, 1781, the main purpose of which league was to 
create this Fuleral Kepublic; and it did create it. But the first compact proving ineffectual, 
they judiciously framed another, to which the majority would have had a natural right to 
compel the minority. 



§ I-?.] Of Vvt'ing equally^ cfc. — Of Binding the Minority. 33 

method (as tlu> most convenient) in numerous assemblies, and when business oF 
various kinds, and of every day's occurrence, is to be ilispatched.i Now, in order 
to this, it is necessary tiiat each member do in such matter submit ids will to the 
will of the whole, or of the major part, as that he, though of a contrary opinion, 
shall be bound absolutely to follow what they determine; which we cannot con- 
ceive, unless at the same time we suppose the latter to hold a command or autiiority 
over the former.^ Besides, in an assembly of Confederates, there seems to be no 
occasion for this right of the majority ; inasmuch as they are seldom composed of 
any considerable number of States, and are chiefly united by the prospect of gen- 
eral advantage, which it is presumed that none in their wits will obstinately op- 
pose. Yet if any, through a malicious and unreasonable i)erverseness, shall refuse 
to join in tiie wholesome counsels of the rest, and by this means shall endeavor 
to betray the common safety, or interest, it will then be lawful to apply the same 
methods of redress, as they who live in a condition of natural liberty are allowed to 
use against the violators of faith and contract,^ unless it be judged the more eligible 
course utterly to purge the society of so intractal)le a partner.* To all which we 
may add, that it must frequently occasion great injustice, if in a Confederate Sys- 
tem the plurality' of votes were to bind the whole body : as when the allies are dis- 
proportioned in tlieir wealth and strength, and consequently some contribute more 
than others to the common defence. For though we may be apt to imagine, that 
they who contribute according to the proportion of their ability, do really bring 
equal shares, yet it may happen very frequently, that one who hath but slender 
fortunes may be more willing to expose them to danger, than another who hath 
larger possessions. Thus let us suppose, tliat in a Confederacy, some one State 
contributes more to the common security, than all taken together; here it would 
be a manifest breach of equity, if this State should, by an agreement of the rest, 
be compelled to engage in any action, the chief burden of which must lie upon its 

1 The obliging of a minority by a bare majority, or bj' any fixed proportion, may prop- 
erly be said to depend upon compact, which may vary upon various subjects, as in our 
compact of Union. But that in Commonwealths, or a Confederacy, the minority, whether 
the parties be States or individuals, should be bound bj' a reasonable and lair majority, ac- 
cording to the subject treated, is reasonable and "according to nature." For if man be the 
political animal afflrmed by Aristotle, and which is unquestionable, it is absolutely impos- 
sible for him to live according to his nature, without the power of compulsion of a greater or 
less proportion of his fellows. Perfect harmony of action between any considerable number 
of men is impossible. Some portion, more or less, must submit to the superior will, and thi.s 
is " according to nature." 

But then comes in the problem, how to protect this minority from tyranny. In extreme 
cases, other means foiling, the minority may protect itself by revolution, which under such 
circumstances becomes their right; the Government, instituted for the benefit of the whole, 
being perverted from its natural purpose and rendered an engine of oppression. Hence the 
right of Revolution of these Colonies; and hence, by counter reasoning, the wrong of the 
South in its recent attempt, the Federal Government having never done them any wrong to 
justify their course. 

2 Yet he does conceive it, and verj^ properly, as we shall soon see. For the right to en- 
force an obligation assumed by covenant, or generated by nature, a Sovereignty is not 
requisite; only adequate power. 

3 There is the remedy, exactly ; so that notwithstanding Pufendorf 's previous miscon- 
ception, and although such an immense Confederacy as this of ours, or such an affair as our 
recent one, was never anticipated, the principles of political science provide abundantly for 
the emergency. Our compact is unquestionably, — Mr. Loring to the contrary notwith- 
standing, -—" between the States;" and as free and independent States, they are in a 
state of nature, to whom " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God " apply. 

4 Quite possibly that is a suggestion worthy consideration. We have been too much 
afraid of Secession, and the excision of some intractable State may prove a beneficial 
experiment. 

3 



34 Reply to Mr. Loring upon "- Reconstruction ^ [T. 2. 

own shoulders. On the other hand, if the votes were to take place according to the 
proportion of force or treasure supplied to the common cause, then the more power- 
ful State would actually obtain a Sovereignty over all besides.i So that we may 
conclude from the whole, that whenever business is decided by the plurality of 
voices, in such a manner as that tlie dissenting parties are likewise bound to stand 
to the resolution, then the regular form of Systems or Confederacies is de- 
serted, and the members cither break into an irregular body or close together in 
one undivided State [effici unam civitatem]." 

Such a conclusion as that, upon premises concerning the 
province of covenant, which this distinguished jurist has more 
perfectly elucidated than any other author, strikingly exhibits 
the imperfection of human judgment, and the necessity of 
bringing together the chief authorities upon all the important 
points, as I propose to do, to learn wherein they are agreed, and 
what is established as principle. Undoubtedly in this our Sys- 
tem, in the technical Greek sense, the parties are bound by their 
covenant obligations to abide by the decisions upon all ordi- 
nary questions, as made by the House, Senate and Executive 
of the Federal Agency ; and as to any changes in the compact 
made by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of 
the States which are parties to the compact. Surely do we 
need to well understand the strength of covenant, the binding 
nature of pact and faith ; and contrary to Pufendorf will we give 
that principle precedence over Sovereignty as to man as a State. 

We need to have the nature of our Union and Federal Gov- 
ernment demonstrated ; for while we are resolved, as we have 
ever been, never " to make one State," — which is a more cor- 
rect rendering, — we are equally desirous of having it under- 
stood that we are no " irregular body," notwithstanding " the 
dissenting parties are bound to stand to the resolution " which 
may be adopted according to the terms of the league. 

§ 14. Other Subjects treated by Pufendorf. 

To further understand the method and thoroughness of this 
standard authority, the heads succeeding may be read. § 21 
shows How these Systems are dissolved; and § 22, concluding 

1 This was another of the ideas which led Madison to imagine our Government was Na- 
tional instead of Federal. Hut it is very easily seen, that for the States to give votes of the same 
number, as in the Senate, or according to population, as in the House, is perfectly compat- 
ible with State Sovereignty. No one questions the former; and in the I-ycian Confed- 
eracy, which Montesquieu judged the most perfect example of a Federal Republic, tiie large 
cities gave three votes, the smaller two, and the small one. It would depend wholly upon 
the terms of the league, wliich, as Vattel has Avell embodied from otiier autliorities, does not 
infract the Sovereignty, being an engagement voluntarily made for its own best good. 



§ 14.] Other Subjects treated by Pufendorf. 35 

the chapter, Of comparing- the several Forms of States (reipub- 
licas). 

Chap. 6 treats Of the Affections (affectionibus, the state or 
condition of a thing produced by external effects) of the Sover- 
eignty ; chap. 7, Of the modes of acquiring Sovereignty, espe- 
cially Monarchial ; chap. 8, Of the Sanctity of Sovereignty of the 
State ; chap. 9, Of the Offices of the Holders of the Sovereignty^ 
which concludes Book 7. Book 8, completing his work, is upon 
the rights and powers of Sovereignty, as in war, the making of 
compacts relating to war and peace, leagues in general, &c. 

It will be evident, that a study of many of these subjects is 
requisite to a full understanding of the nature of our Union. 
Yet a comparison of our documents and historical facts with 
the principles quoted, were the latter received as a certain rule 
of judgment, would serve to prove whether iMr. Loring or my- 
self is correct in our respective and positive assertions. The 
more complete the comparison of documents with principles, the 
clearer will be our conceptions, not only of the thorough concord 
of our practice with political science, but of the strength and 
solidity of our compound administration, State and Federal; 
being the most perfect example of Federal Republican Democ- 
racy which the world has ever enjoyed. And now — 

§ 15. With these Premises, avhat shall be our Conclusion t 

Such are some of the principles of political science, underly- 
ing every Government duly and rightfully instituted. Yet are 
they offered less to use in the present argument, than to enable 
the reader as we progress to see their applicability to these 
States and to our National Union, exhibiting the concord of 
my hypothesis and argument with these principles, and the dis- 
agreement therewith of Mr. Loring's. My sole purpose, too, 
being to invite the attention of our practical Citizens to the 
necessity of applying these principles to the solution of our dif- 
ficulties, the opportunity is embraced to give them a sample, 
though with manifest imperfections of translation. 

Granted that, according to popular notions, we have had so 
much more sagacity than all the world as to have invented a 
wholly new form of Government, — for it is believed to have a 
double Sovereignty — so wonderfully ingenious as that by it we 
can demonstrate to a dot how a body can have two souls, a uni- 
verse two Gods; — even if we are so much ahead of Montes- 



36 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '■'■Recotistruction.'" [T. 2. 

quieu, Aristotle and the Bible, still ought it not to be a subject of 
a little curiosity and interest, to investigate the nature of our 
Governments, of unexampled power and strength, and with that 
beneficence of administration that a century has displayed, and 
in spite of our errors both in theory and in practice, — would we 
not naturally have some pride and satisfaction in finding our sys- 
tem existed in perfect accord with political science, and with the 
immutable " Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," upon which 
that science is founded ? 

These truths, too, or corresponding ones from other author- 
ities, are the premises, and the only premises, whereby it is pos- 
sible to prove that a State or Nation has proper existence, and 
what is its nature. Not a word in the Constitution defines the 
State ; and the word Sovereignty, the fundamental principle 
whereby the States had power to " establish the Constitution 
between them," is not even named. For a knowledge of this 
and other principles underlying the Constitution, and for a cor- 
rect definition of words, we are compelled to resort to other 
sources of information, the most trustworthy of which are Gro- 
tius and his followers. 

So that if Mr. Loring's Nation of the United States be a regu- 
lar, sound, and healthy body politic, it will be found to exist in 
accord with these principles ; and they are indispensable to the 
establishment of his main premise, the Nationality and Sover- 
eignty of the United States. For though he defines State, he 
leaves other important words and ideas to be construed accord- 
ing to usual acceptation, for which resort must be made to au- 
thorities ; and even his definition of State he believes to be 
correctly deduced from those authorities. Should his premises 
upon compan-ison accord with those principles, and also his ar- 
gument, there can be no resistance to the conclusion of his 
paper, thus : — 

[O"*^] Upon every principle, therefore, of public law applicable to a condition of 
peace or war; upon any reasonable construction of the Constitution in reference to 
the relations of the inhabitants of tlie several States, and of those States to the na- 
tional Government which it created and defined ; and upon the fundamental prin- 
ciples of interpretation applicable to civil or national compacts, — it is believed that 
no reasonable doubt should exist that the inhabitants of the States recently in rebel- 
lion, by that act forfeited, abandoned or lost their political rights or representation in 
Congress, and at the close of it, by their enforced surrender, were, in the language of 
that report, [of the Committee of Congress on Keconstruction,] " disorganized com- 
munities, without civil government, and without constitutions, or other forms, by 
virtue of which political relations could legally exist between them and the Federal 



§ 15.] With these Premises, what shall he our Conclusion? 37 

Government." The vast majority of them were criminals wiio had violated their 
allegiance, forfeited all rights civil or political, including those of liberty and life itself, 
holding them only at the mercy of the Government wiiich they had thus outraged 
and defied, but to whose power they liad been compelled unwillingly to submit. 

And consequently that they could be reinstated in their political rights only by 
the assent of the Government which represented the nation, and is fully empowered 
to do all things needful for the preservation of the Constitution and the Union, and 
the restoration of the people to unity and the enjoyment of political privileges un- 
der them. 

Such are the conclusions to which Mr. Loring's premises logi- 
cally conduct. If correct, the sovereign Nation, which according 
to our Author may be either the body politic of the States uni- 
ted, — the whole People of the United States, — the Federal 
Government itself, — or even Congress, has by war and the rights 
of conquest, the sole power and responsibility of fixing the terms 
of reconstruction and of reinstating the seceded and conquered 
States in their lost rights. 

On the other hand, if I am right, the United States having no 
Sovereignty, but being only the Agent whereby these sovereign 
States have exercised their war powers, the conquest that has 
been effected was made by and for them through their Federal 
Agency. That Agency, like any other, having no right or author- 
ity to do any thing in the premises, not expressly delegated to 
its specific and special Department ; neither the Government as 
a whole, nor the United States as a body politic, has the least 
right or power to do a single act, except by its special Depart- 
ments specifically authorized in its letter of authority, the Con- 
stitution. This brings forth the main issue between us, as to 
whether the States or the United States are possessed of the 
Sovereignty. 

Incidentally, yet materially affecting the argument, comes 
in the topic, as to whether and how a Sovereign, or a sovereign 
Nation, can acquire increased rights by conquering its own sub- 
jects. Upon this question, quite important to Mr. Loring's con- 
clusion, we could make but sorry progress, were it not for his own 
exposition ; the other authorities in such matters having over- 
looked this interesting and effective phenomenon in subduing a 
rebellion, and which every tyrant would applaud Mr. Loring for 
effectively establishing in political science.^ And as neither our 
fundamental documents nor insignia have aught to say about 
the point, it can only be incidentally considered, just to follow 
Mr. Loring and test the soundness of his hypothesis. 

1 Is it unduly tre.spassing to commend Mr. Loring for precisely the same thing which h» 
discovers commendable in Judge Curtis' extract [C]^? 



38 Reply to Mr. Loring upon "■Reconstruction." [T. 2. 

But should Mr. Loring's argument prove a little weak, entertain 
no fear a-s to our rights of conquest of the seceded States. That 
fundamental point concludes my argument equally with his, and 
I trust better. We only adopt different processes of reasoning 
to reach the same result. And wherein the authorities are weak 
in support of Mr. Loring's view, they are abundantly sufficient 
to sustain my own. So that should he fail in the little job of 
remodelling International Law to suit his argument, we need 
not fear losing the rights of conquest, nor fail to make the best 
possible use of them ; provided our statesmen and Citizens will 
only study the other chief works besides Mr. Loring's and mine. 

Said that practical conjoiner of politics and religioti, Robert 
Hall, in " An Apology for the Freedom of the Press " : — 

Were there indeed any impropriety in laying them [the true sources of political 
power] open, the blame would not tall on the friends of freedom, but on the provo- 
cation afforded by the extravagance and absurdity of its enemies. If princely 
power had never been raised to a level witii the attributes of the divinity by Filmer, 
it had probably never been sunk as low as popular acquiescence by Locke. The 
confused mixture of liberty and oppression which ran tlirough the feudal system, 
prevented the theory of government from being closely inspected ; particular rights 
were secured ; but the relation of the people to their rulers was never explained on 
its just principles, till the transfer of superstition to civil power shocked the common 
sense of mankind, and awakened their inquiries. They drew aside the veil, and 
where they were taught to expect a mystery they discerned a fraud. There is, 
however, no room to apprehend any evil from political investigation, that will not 
be greatly overbalanced by its advantages. 

Milton, too, one of the most learned and judicious politicians 
of his day, said in his " Course of Study : " — 

The end, tlien, of learning, is to repair the ruin of our first parents by regain- 
ing to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to him, to be like him, as we 
may the nearest by possessing our souls of true virtue, which being united to the 
heavenly grace of faith, makes up tlie highest perfection. But because our under- 
gtanding cannot in this body found itself but on sensible things, nor arrive so 
clearly at the knowledge of God and things invisible, as by orderly conning over 
the visible and inferior creature, the same method is necessarily to be followed in 
all discreet teaching. And seeing every nation affords not experience and tradi- 
tion enough for all kind of learning, therefore we are cliiefly taught the languages 
of those people who have at any time been most industrious after wisdom ; so that 
language is but the instrument conveying to us things useful to be known ; and 
though a linguist should pride himself to have all the tongues that Babel cleft the 
world into, yet if he have not studied the solid things in them, as well as the words 
and lexicons, he were nothing so much to be esteemed a learned man, as any yeo- 
man or tradesman competently wise in his mother dialect only. 

Next to religion, what so deeply concerns men anywhere, as 
politics ? What is more closely related to, and more influences 
the former, than the latter ? And of all countries, where is it of 



§ 15.] With these Premises^ what shall be our Conclusion? 39 

equal importance for each Citizen to be informed in the princi- 
ples of his Government, as in this, where the humblest-born may 
become President? Therefore write I in the main for these 
busy Citizens who must individually understand these subjects ; 
for them, the stay and support of our institutions, who can not, 
imist not trust to leadership to maintain and practice advantage- 
ously our Governments. And while, unfortunately, they have 
not that confidence in political principles that would be desir- 
able, for out of our own books it would puzzle even a Philadel- 
phia lawyer to discover wherein our " principal jurists agree," 
so that they could heed Kent's counsel ; yet they have full faith 
in our authoritative documents, as herein before argued. So 
that although Mr. Loring only introduces some of them by way 
of illustration and confirmation, they are with me, as set forth 
in the thesis, § 1, the chief premises. What of Mr. Loring's 
teachings and my own accord with them, is true and valuable ; 
f what is contrary, pernicious and false. 

Let it here be remembered, and all the time, that our hopes 
and our fears, our abhorrence and our desire, should have no 
influence in considering and determining the issue. Fairly and 
squarely must the principles be applied to the facts in our 
history, and to the documents, to ascertain the nature of our 
Governments and Union. No matter that one fears a Federal 
Republic is weak and good for nothing, because the South have 
claimed under it the right, at the individual will and pleasure of 
each State, to nullify or secede. Have full faith in principles, 
despite appearances, and judge candidly whether our Union be 
Federal or Consolidated ; and surely shall you find a genuine 
Federal Republic the strongest National Government ever de- 
vised, and ours the most perfect. But whether perfect or not, 
we want first to know precisely what we have, in order to do 
what is right and necessary in the way of " iJeconstruction." 
"What is best to be done, applies to the present and future. We 
need first to understand what has been agreed and established. 

So, too, if we have the rights of conquest, which many dread 
and abhor, in no wise are we deprived of them by denying their 
acquisition. We all wish to know the exact truth, that in this 
anomalous and critical condition, what is rig!it and best may be 
done to continue unimpaired, and to distant generations, the 
beneficent institutions which we have inherited. 

The subject before us being that of Reconstruction, the first 



40 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '■'-Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

point would be to ascertain what is to be reconstructed. We 
then want to know how to reconstruct, and who must do it. 
Mr. Loring's argument leads naturally to the conclusion that the 
supreme National Government, which resolves itself into Con- 
'gress, has the power. Mine will lead to the conclusion that 
these supreme Peoples, as they constructed, must do the work 
of Reconstruction. The foregoing principles, and others similar, 
oup-ht to supply the chief means of determining these questions. 
As it is, they must be applied with whatever confidence in them 
we may have, to the facts in our history and to our docu- 
ments ; but trust especially to the plain, positive declarations 
of those documents, and to our insignia. Let us, then, follow 
Mr. Loring's example, and inquire — 

§ 16. Which had Preexistence — the States or Union? 

Besides the positive declaration first above quoted, Mr. Loring 

thus concludes a lengthy recital of points, many of which are 

at least questionable : — 

[IQi^] From this liistory, nothing can be clearer tlian the proposition that no 
one of these States had ever been free, sovereign, and independent in its external, 
however it may have been so in its internal relations ; but with regard to them no 
controversy has ever arisen. 

There has never been a moment, from the breaking out of the Kevolution, wlien 
the inhabitants of any one of these States ever pretended to be a separate people 
from those of any other State in anij national relation whatever ; on the contrary, 
they always claimed to be portions of the people of Great Britain at the outset, and 
to become exclusively one independent people after declaring their final separation 
from her. Rights of national citizensliip.were never claimed by tlie inhabitants of 
any particular State, as distinguished from tliose of any otlier State, but always as 
citizens of the United States, comprehending tliem altogether. It is true that tliey 
were internally divided into separate and distinct municipal governments, sover- 
eign and independent in all that regards tlieir domestic relations ; and could con- 
tract as such States, as being entirely independent so far as they had not surren- 
dered the power so to contract to the central Government. 

" From [the concurrence of our fundamental documents with 
principles of political science,] nothing can be clearer than the 
proposition, that [ever?/] one of these States [which] had ever 
been free, sovereign, and independent in its " internal relations, 
must have been in its external also. And coupled to this is the 
undeniable truth of history, that " there has never been a mo- 
ment from the breaking out of the Revolution, when the inhab- 
itants of any one of these States ever pretended, [in their author- 
itative documents or elsewhere, to be any other than a] separate 
people from those of any other State, in \_everi/'\ national relation 



§ 16.] Which had Preexistence ■ — the States or Union ? 41 

whatever;" except as for their mutual protection, and as a 
means of preserving their individual Sovereignty, they bound 
themselves together as a Nation in certain respects. But they 
certainly were never subject after separating from Great Britain 
to any other earthly power ; and it is notorious that the chief 
obstacle to the first, and to the second " more perfect Union," 
was the fear that it would subject them to this central Govern- 
ment. Yet in direct contradiction of this truth Mr. Loring de- 
clares — 

[11^] In sliort, tlie iiiliabitants of the colonics, before the DecLiration of Inde- 
pendence, had substantially established a national Government in the name and with 
the general consent and a|)probation of the people, and with all the ])rincipal attri- 
butes of a nation, excepting that of international sovereignty, which they had not 
3 et claimed. The struggle was as yet in defence of their violated rights as citizens 
of Great Britain, and carried on under the title of " The United Colonies ; " thus 
still recognizing that relationship. 

Mr. Loring here differs with Mr. Curtis, the historian of the 
Constitution, who found considerable difficulty in making a 
Nation out of the first Continental Congress, though he suc- 
ceeded with the second. But our Author's course appears more 
consistent, it being difficult to discover any difl'erence in the source 
and nature of the authority delegated to the second, from that 
delegated to the first Congress. In either of them, however, it 
is not easy to conceive how any nationality could have existed 
prior to their becoming States. As subordinate Colonies, hold- 
ing their every right by specific grant of the Crown, either by 
special grant to each Colony, as in its charter, or provincial or 
proprietary Government ; or by general grant, as Ma^na Charta, 
Petition of Right, &c., — being as Colonies wholly subordinate to 
the Sovereignty of " the State of Great Britain," it is not easily 
discoverable how this Revolutionary Nation could have come into 
existence ; particularly against the notable fact, that in 1754 the 
Colonies endeavored to frame a Confederacy, not as independent 
States, but as Colonies, which failed because the Crown refused 
its assent. Manifestly, the first step to create a new Nation 
must have been to become free and independent — to separate 
from " the State of Great Britain," which it is to the imperisha- 
ble glory of the Colonies, that they resisted to the utmost. For 
of the six, compelled by the abdication of royal officials and by 
war, to institute Governments prior to the 4th July, 1776, Vir- 
ginia was the only one to cut loose from the mother-land uncon- 
ditionally. 



42 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

Besides this obstacle to the preexistence of the United States 
Nation, which would seem worthy of a little consideration by 
Consolidists, it appears that Mr. Loring himself presents the 
main points proving, even from the Declaration of Independence 
itself, directly the contrary of his above affirmation. For with 
truth he observes : — 

[12^] By the Deolaration of Independence in 1776, made " in the name and be- 
half o/' Me good people of these colonies," it was enacted that they were " and of right 
ought to be free and independent States ; that they are absolved from all allegiance 
to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State 
of Great Britain is and ought to be dissolved ; " and that their national title there- 
after sliould be that of the " United States of America," —by which title they have 
ever since been universally recognized. 

The Continental Congress was not authorized to enact, but 
simply to declare a fact. For no further enactment was necessary 
than that supplied by " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's 
God ; " each individual Colony thereunder taking its Sove- 
reignty into its own keeping, which the King had forfeited by 
his tyranny, thereby transforming the Colony into a free and 
independent State. With this transfer of the Sovereignty, the 
allegiance of the subjects was transferred from the Monarch to 
the Commonwealth; of which fact a pro forma enactment was 
proclaimed by the duly constituted State Agents of Massachu- 
setts, in General Court assembled, on the 1st of May, 1776. 
(See Ancient Charters.) By this transfer the other Agents of 
the State in Congress were authorized to join with the dele- 
gates of the other States in proclaiming the fact of Indepen- 
dence ; and hence the august instrument is entitled with ad- 
mirable correctness, every word having special and important 
significance, "A Declaration by the Representatives of the 
United States of America, in Congress assembled." 

This " good People of the Colonies," as they chose to style 
themselves, meant to be " one People " in fact ; so that even 
previous to the issuing of this Declaration, while the Delegates 
were waiting for their respective authority from their several 
States or Colonies, and the very next day after ap[)ointing a 
committee to draft the form of Declaration of Independence, 
they appointed another committee " to prepare and digest the 
form of a confederation to be entered into between these Colo- 
nies." They meant to be " one People," and so styled them- 
selves in the Declaration ; yet not as one consolidated State, but 
as united States. Upon this point they were very particular, so 



§ 16.] Which had Preexistence — the States or Union ? 43 

that Mr. Lori ng might with effect, pro or con as to his argu- 
ment, have added, that in order to make sure of the status 
which the individual Colonies were to occupy among the other 
States or Nations of the earth, they repeated twice more " that, 
as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have 
full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, estab- 
lish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which IN- 
DEPENDENT STATES may of right do." 

But instead of that natural quotation, Mr. L, adds to the 
previous extract : — 

[13^] By these proceedings, the inliabitants of all the colonies, actnifj as one 
people, threw off their allegiance to the Britisii Crown, and claimed to become an 
independent sovereign nation, entitled to all the riglits and attributes of external 
and internal sovereignty in regard to all international relations. 

They did not assert any pretension of becoming severally independent States, 
entitled to any such sovereignty, in their relation to foreign nations. They 
claimed no membership as individual States in the fomily of nations ; nor did they 
deci.;re any independence of each other in any relations with them ; but asserted 
their right to be accounted and dealt with as one sovereign people or nation, com- 
posed of the inhabitants of all the States ; and as such, and only as such, have they 
ever since been recognized in all the treaties and international relations of peace or 
war into which they have since entered. 

Mr. Loring seems slightly unfortunate in making his conclud- 
ing declaration so positive as to " all the treaties of peace and 
war ; " for it happens that the first and most important one with 
the State of Great Britain, that of peace, and of acknowledg- 
ment of our freedom and independence, was made with the thir- 
teen States, enumerating them by name, though then incorpo- 
rated as a Federal Republic.^ Further, it was insisted upon, that 
their independence should not be acknowledged as a grant, but 
as a fact, as the Declaration had proclaimed. Separately had 
they become independent, six prior to the 4th of July, six on that 
memorable day. New York remaining a part of " the State of 
Great Britain " until the 9th. How could these States, then, so 
wholly dissociated, have had a preunion, constituting Mr. Lor- 
ing's Nation ? And although the Colonies that had assumed 
independence, did it under the advice of that wise collection of 
patriots, the Continental Congress, which for counsel had been 
convened, and upon which when the King made war against 

1 " Art. I. His Britannic ^Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.: New 
Hampshire, ^lassachusetts Bay, etc., to be Free, Soverefgn, and Independent States; that 
he treats with them as such ; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relincjuishes all claim 
to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof," 
&c. 



44 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''^ [T. 2. 

them they were obliged to depend ; yet so far from having the 
unlimited powers of Sovereignty, with authority -to direct State 
action, the Delegates of each State were strictly limited by their 
special letters of authority. In treating for peace, the commis- 
sioners of the King sought a recognition of claims, which neither 
the American commissioners, nor Congress, had power to grant.^ 

Instead of being a Nation, they appointed a committee the 
next day after appointing the committee on the Declaration of 
Independence, to prepare Articles of Confederation between the 
States. How useless, if already a Nation ; yet was the Confed- 
eration not effected until 1781. Besides, this supreme National 
Government could not make for a month even the mere Decla- 
ration of the fact of Independence, having to await authority 
from the respective Colonies to their Delegates ; and those of 
New York not being authorized, they did not adopt and sign 
the Declaration of Independence until the 9th. 

Mr. Loring's statement in the last paragraph quoted is some- 
what positive, and possibly may have been duly considered ; 
yet against even his opinion, may not the " Declaration by the 
Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress 
assembled," have a little weight ? Being made explicitly to 
declare to the world the status which the late Colonies were to 
have among the Nations, it ought to be entitled to some cre- 
dence, if we have any one truthful, trustworthy document. Even 
the words Mr. L. himself quotes admit of but one construction ; 
and if the additional words quoted by me be not sutficient to 
contradict Mr. Loring's extraordinary affirmation, the idea can- 
not be expressed in the English language. Sovereignty indeed 
is not mentioned, nor was it desirable, for of necessity it is im- 
plied. Even a tyro in political science knows that " a free and 
independent State " is of right sovereign, and therefore was 
the tautology omitted. 

But will Mr. Loring look at the motto on the escutcheon of 
the United States ? That is a false declaration if Mr. Lorinsr 
speak the truth, for it proclaims E Pluribus Unum ; literally, 

1 Art. V. of the Treaty of Peace provided ..." that Congress shall also earnestly rec- 
ommend to the several States a reconsideration and revision of all acts and laws regarding 
the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice 
and equity, but with that spirit oV conciliation, which on the return of the blessings of 
peace should universally prevail; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the 
several Slates, that the estates, rights, and properties of such last mentioned persons shall 
be restored to them," &c. 



§ IG.J Which had Preexistence — the States or Uyiion? 4o 

'' from several one." ^ Yet Mr. Loring will have it, that we are 
several out of one — that this sovereign Nation of the United 
States created the States, instead of the States the Union. 
Have the fathers made such blunders, pervading every public 
document ? or have the sons, wholly absorbed in the practical 
enjoyment of the blessings flowing in unequalled measure from 
their wisdom, lost sight of the principles according to which our 
compound system is framed ? As testing the folly of the fathers, 
and the wisdom of the sons, let us next consider — 

§ 17. Mr. Lorinci upon the Sovereignty of Massachusetts. 

[14^'] Bv reference to tlie Constitution of Massachusetts, Part I. Art. IV. 
(which was adopted before the Articles of Confederation were executed), it will be 
seen, that she, in asserting the right of her people to govern themselves as a free, 
sovereign and independent State, limits these rights to the exercise and enjoyment 
of every power, jurisdiction, and right "which is not, or may not hereafter he, hj them 
erpressli/ delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled." Now, at that 
time the United States of America was tiie only nation known or recognized, or 
claiininij to exist, as one of the family of nations, and of wiiich each State formed 
only a component part, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence. No dis- 
avowal of distinct or independent or sovereign nationality could be more explicit. 

Here, too, is a slight difference of opinion, as according to my 
reading of the Constitution, I would strike out that first dis in 
the last sentence. Of all the features of the Constitution of 
Massachusetts, it appears to me that of making sure of State 
Sovereignty is the most prominent. 

Mr. Loring quotes the positive declaration, though in his judg- 
ment so trivial as not worthy of italicizing, nor even of quotation 
marks, that she is sovereign, free and independent, and yet con- 
ceives that she has impaired her Sovereignty by the mere delega- 
tion of powers, which she then (1780) designed to make, and ulti- 
mately did make, when Maryland finally acceding to the com- 
pact, 1st March, 1781, rendered the articles obligatory. But how 
is it infracted by this delegation to the F'ederal, any more than to 
the State Agents ? In each case, and equally, is the right of the 
power still hers, though exercised for her by one set of agents 
for one set of duties, and by another set for another set of 
duties, and this provision was so correctly made, that no change 
was requisite in the State Constitution, when in 1788 additional 
power was transferred from the State to the Federal Agency. 

1 Noah Webster, who as an influential adviser about the changes from the Confedera- 
tion, knew something whereof he was writing, says in his dictionary: " E pluribus unum. 
One composed of many; the motto of the United States, consisting of many States confed- 
erated." 



46 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Jleconstructiony [T. 2. 

But other clauses bear upon this important question in that 
admirable State rights document, the Constitution of Massachu- 
setts. That which Mr. L. partly quotes is in full as follows : — 

The people of tliis Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of govern- 
ing themselves, as a free, sovereign, anil independent State ; and do, and forever 
hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is 
not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of 
America, in Congress assembled. 

The delegation, be it observed, is to the United States. Nor 
is it to the whole people of the United States, but to this Gov- 
ernmental Agency of the States united, then consisting of a 
single Congress. She was here duly exercising her prerogatives, 
recognizing the transfer of authority from her special State 
Agents to the general Agents of herself and sister Common- 
wealths. And where is the slightest evidence of any grant or 
even delegation from Mr. Loring's Nation to the State? Has 
Massachusetts usurped all its rights? 

The next clause of the Constitution, recognizing the officials 
as mere Agents of the Sovereign People, is pertinent, and shows 
how well the important trust was apprehended ; but passing it, 
we come to the compact : — 

The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachu- 
setts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to join them- 
selves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic or State, by the name of 
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The long oath was thus : — 

I, A. B.,do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign, 
and independent State ; and I do swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to 
the said Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against traitorous conspira- 
cies, and all hostile attempts whatsoever, &c. 

Nor does the new and shorter form of oath make any es- 
sential change. " Now, allegiance is nothing more than the tie 
or duty of obedience of a subject to the Sovereign under whose 
protection he is," as Story declares ; and how happens it that 
this Nation of the United States has no such requirement, 
officials being enjoined merely to " support the Constitution ? " 
Are not these " clear, definite," and positive declarations of Mr. 
Loring's native State worthy of regard, and not to be set aside 
by his bare declaration that " no one of these United States 
ever had political existence as a sovereign, free, and independent 
State ? " If Air. Loring has peculiar ideas about internal and 
external Sovereignty, so that he has difficulty in harmonizing 



§ 17.] Mr. Loring upon the Sovereignty of Massachusetts. 47 

them with his State Constitution, is it not the part of wisdonn to 
inquire whether he has all possible light upon the subject, rather 
than declare that his State has deliberately proclaimed most 
dangerous falsehoods, and persistently sticks to them ? If the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts tell the truth, what is Mr. 
Loring's contradiction ? 

But Mr. Loring affirms in that last quotation, that " the United 
States of America was the only nation known and recognized, or 
claiming to exist as one of the family of nations," &c. Let us 
then next consider the — 

§ 18. Nationality and Sovereignty of the United States. 

So far from the United States being the prior Nation, it had 
literally, absolutely, no existence as a body politic until the 1st of 
March, 1781; the Continental Congress constituting a mere in- 
formal body of delegates, first of the Colonies, then of the States. 
Upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and not 
before, it became a genuine Nation, as Mr. L. says himself, — 
coupling the next two extracts, — yet so entirely dependent 
upon the imperfect league whereby it had existence, that but for 
the substitution of the more perfect one of 1787-89, it would 
have ceased to exist.^ 

Mr. L. goes on to say : — 

[15^1]. Hitherto there had been no written articles of confederation or agreement, 
by whicli the obHgation of the States, or the authority of the Congress, or the nature 
of the central Government, were defined. 

The powers of an external national sovereignty had been assumed and acted 
upon by the consent of the people ; but its internal authority, or means of main- 
taining itself, were all left to loose construction, or the voluntary agency of the 
several independent States to comply witli their respective duties, resulting from 
the alliance. 

A very loose national authority that, most certainly ; yet is the 
description correct. Neither of Pufendorf's bands seem to have 
much effect in this sort of Nation ; and what is a little remark- 
able, the subjects at home are less under control than affairs 
abroad. A novel sort of Sovereignty ! 

1 It is impossible in this paper to thoroughly present the points. The subject has been 
pretty well studied, and will be examined more critically in my projected work, in con- 
nection vrith Mr. George Ticknor Curtis' History of the Constitution, which more than any 
other work philosophizes upon, and endeavors to make reasonable, a double Sovereignty. 
But Mr. C. only claims the second Continental Congress as constituting the Revolutionary 
Government. Mr. L., with more consistency, I think, claims equal Sovereignty for both of 
them, for both rest upon precisely the same basis, mere delegated authority, according to the 
terms of the respective credentials. 



48 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'^ [T. 2. 

The truth is admitted, which is undeniable, that there " had 
been no written articles " between the States. And in this land 
of written law, which is our just and proper boast, the evidence 
of this national authority can and should be given ; especially as 
the records of the Continental Congress have so carefully pre- 
served the evidence of whatever authority the States hnd dele- 
gated to any agency except to their respective State Govern- 
ments. The truth is, "the obligation of the States, or the au- 
thority of the Congress," had no existence except by those special 
delegations; and no "central Government" was or could have 
been instituted without the consent of the States, except by 
usurpation. No " central Government" is imagined other than 
the Continental Congress; and it is an unjust aspersion of that 
august body, that it " assumed " — usurped — powers. Because 
it so faithfully kept within its letters of authority, which were 
quite extensive, to prosecute the war and obtain honorable peace, 
it \vas so inefficient. And who can show the evidence, written 
or unwritten, of any right or power in the Continental Congress, 
beyond that granted by the States in their respective letters of 
authority to their Delegates ? ^ 

As to the " external National Sovereignty," these States have 

1 This quotation from the Journals of Congress, affords a specimen of the authority: — 

" The Delegates from Massachusetts Bay laid before Congress a resolution of the Legislature of that 
State, respecting the powers of their Delegates in Congress, which was read as follows : 

" State of MASSACHUSETTS BAY. In the House of Representatives, December 12, 177". 

" Whereas, the honorable John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge 
Gerry, Francis Dana, and James Lovell, Esquires, have been chosen by joint ballot of the two houses 
of this assembly, to represent the State aforesaid in the American Congress for one year, to commenc*- 
on the first day of January ne.xt ensuing : 

" Resolved, That the above-named gentlemen be and they hereby are fully empowered, with other 
delegates from the American States for the term above mentioned, to concert, direct and order such 
further measures as to them shall appear best calculated for the establishment of right, liberty and 
independence to the American States, upon a basis permanent and secure, for prosecuting witli vigor the 
present just and necessary war, concluding peace, contracting alliances, regulating commerce, and 
guarding against all encroachment and machinations of the enemies of the United States, and to ad- 
journ to such times and places as shall appear most conducive to the public safety and advantage ; and 
it is further resolved, that not less than three of the above mentioned gentlemen shall make a repre- 
sentation of thi.s State ; the majority of those present, after consultation, to give the voice of the State, 
notwithstanding it is expected that five of them will attend as generally as may be. Sent up for con- 
currence. 

"J. WARREN, Speaker. 

'' In Council, Dec. 13, 1777. Read and concurred. 

" JOHN AVERY, Deputy Secretary.'" 

Tliis, be it observed, was rightful and legitimate State action; not under the Constitution 
of 1780, but under the Cohuiial Charter and the Declaration of Independence, actually a 
State Constitution, which had been made, 1st Ma}', 1776. A compilation of these interesting' 
documents and facts, which will be presented in my work, will exhibit the correct transition 
from Colonies to States. Mr. Henry B. Dawson published through the New York Histori- 
cal Society, from the archives of Massachusetts, a copy of this important act, which is also 
to be seen where I first found it, in the Ma.s.sachusett9 volume entitled " Ancient Charters." 



§ 18.] Nationality and Sovereignty of the United States. 49 

always possessed it, though exercised by them jointly from the 
very beginning; first by the informal authority of their Delegates 
in the Continental Congress ; then regularly by their Delegates 
under the Articles of Confederation ; and then by their Delegates 
under the present compact. But it happens that its " internal 
authority " was much less " left to loose construction," than was 
the "external," State Constitutions being speedily adopted and 
Governments instituted. Nor is it any matter as to what was 
tacitly permitted by the States in the Revolutionary contest; 
for inter arma silent leges^ "in war the laws slumber." The ques- 
tion is as to what these " free and independent States," who 
claimed equal right with their peers " to do all other acts and 
things which independent States may of right do," actually did. 

And Mr. Loring well depicts the actual condition of this his 
Nation, the difficulties under which it labored as to external 
affairs, and the necessity for these "free and independent States" 
to do something more than had yet been done to preserve their 
independence and freedom. Says he : — 

[161'"] 'piip etnbarrassment and inefficiency evidently resulting from this state 
of affairs rendered some more definite bond of obligation and union essential ; and 
the Congress in November, 1777, addressed a circular letter to the legislatures of 
the several States, recommending them " to invest tiie delegates of the States with 
competent powers ultimately, in the name and behalf of the State, to subscribe arti- 
cles of confederation and ppvpftaal union of the United States, and to attend Congress 
for that purpose on or before the tenth day of March next." 

But it was not till 1781 that the articles were adopted, owing to many causes of 
delay, a principal one of which was the claims of several of the States to the West- 
ern lands, extending to the Pacific Ocean, which it was contended by the other 
States should be held in common, as purcliased by the common blood and treasure 
of all of them ; and which lands were finally ceded to the United States immedi- 
ately after the articles were executed, thus constituting a most important further 
bond of national union, and an inestimable element of future wealth and power. 

Indeed it was right and wise in Maryland and New Jersey 
to withhold their ratification until the right of all the States in 
the surplus territory, the proprietorship of which had been ac- 
quired by their common blood and treasure, should be recog- 
nized ; and especially of the immense tracts yet unbought from 
the aboriginal proprietors. But is it not proof positive of the 
lack of Sovereignty in Mr. Loring's Nation, that it could not 
even control the proprietorship of the soil? Where was the 
right of eminent domain, that these titles could not be con- 
trolled ? Would a National Sovereignty be perfect without it ? 
And en passant, has even the United States that prerogative 
now, under the more perfect Government of the Constitution ? 
4 



50 Replji to Mr. Loring upon '■'- Recomtruction.''' [T. 2. 

Is the Nation truly Sovereign without that important preroga- 
tive ? Yet, can the United States get lawful possession of a 
little tract, even for a light-house or a fort, except by voluntary 
sale of the individual proprietor, and by voluntary session of 
jurisdiction by the State Legislature ? — a grant quite question- 
able, and only of concurrent jurisdiction with itself at best.^ 

But while Mr. Loring disregards these slight inconsistencies 
as to the Sovereignty of his Nation, what an august majesty he 
pictures! This Nation., three years e\\steni.,\\\\mh\y recommend- 
ing " the legislatures to invest the delegates of the States with 
competent powers ultimately, in the name and behalf of 
THE State, to subscribe," — what ? why, this tremendous Na- 
tion, different from any other under heaven, needs some sort of 
band that Pufendorf describes not, to hold it together. So this 
supreme Nation — for Congress itself was sovereign according 
to Mr. L. — as in duty bound, suppliantly requests its legitimate 
liege Lords, by its own Agents, the State Legislatures, to duly 
authorize another set of Agents in Congress, " to subscribe Arti- 
cles of CONFEDERATION and PERPETUAL UNION.2 

But Mr. Loring is candid, and while giving the name of the 
body politic, he also mentions correctly the constituent parties ; 
and the '■'•perpetual Union,'" it appears, is " of the United Sta.tes.''^ 
And who and what are these parties ? They are the same who 
had duly authorized these same Delegates " in Congress assem- 
bled," to declare the fact that they had become '•'•free and inde- 
pendent States,^'' and " that as free and independent States, 
they " — not this imaginary Nation of the United States, 
which as yet had no existence, and which the Delegates were 
striving to create — " they have full power to levy war, etc., 
and to do all other acts and things which free and independent 
States may of right do." The effort was by " Articles of Con- 
federation and perpetual Union," to create these States into 

1 No greater blunder was made by the fathers, than in imagining that by the transfer of 
proprietorship of tlie land as such, which was all any State Legislature could of right dis- 
pose of, and therefore all that was efl'ected, the Sovereignty and jurisdiction were also trans- 
ferred. The conflicting claims of Sovereignty, under the charters and grants from the 
Crown, should have been adjusted by the Court provided for in the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, and jurisdiction retained by the State, until, as in the case of Massachusetts, it should 
have been found expedient to create a new State, as in 1820 Maine was created. The Dane 
Ordinance of 1787 will be found, upon investigation, to have been an infamous usurpation 
of Mr. L.' s sovereign Nation. 

2 Mr. Loring's italicizing is usually quite effective for my argument. But those two words, 
which he merely italicizes, and the one preceding, which with him has no significance, may 
properly be made more prominent, particularly in regard to such a Nation as needs Confed- 
erac}- to hold it together. 



§ 18.] Nationalify and Sovereignty of the United States. 51 

another State or Nation, which they designed to christen by the 
significant name of " The United States o/ ^mmca ; " which, 
while it correctly indicated the parties creating the new body 
politic and corporate among the Nations of the earth, at the same 
time clearly defined the nature of the Nation, to any one who 
had proper conception of free and independent States, and of a 
Union by league between them. 

§ 19. U. S. Sovereignty under the First Constitution, or 
Articles of Confederation. 

Mr. Loring describes the powers of the Federal Government 

as first instituted, [69]i26. Of course he understood that while 

that Constitution " vested all the powers " specified in Congress, 

the title, the proprietorship thereof was not transferred from the 

People. In the present Constitution the same word is used, 

while the 10th amendment proves the transfer to be a trust, 

being merely " deleg-atedJ'^ The gist of the 2d Article, too, is 

given, which declared explicitly, that — 

Eacli State retains its Sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, 
jurisdiction, and kigiit, which is not by these articles expressly delegated to the 
United States IN Congress assembled. 

The power is not actually granted away, but is delegated ; 
the right of it, the ownership, being reserved. It was an entail 
in trust, not a grant in fee simple. Nor is this delegation, be it 
observed, to the whole People of the United States, nor to the 
body politic of the States united ; but it is specifically to this 
Agency of the States " in Congress assembled." 

Mr. Loring then enunciates a most important truth : — 

[I71*] In short, the Articles of Confederation constituted the people of the 
States, thus united, one nation, as entirely as it was practicable for any mere league 
or confederation of States to do so. 

Then, indeed, was this Nation " constituted," and for the first 
time ; and no " mere league or confederation of States " can be 
imagined to do it more effectually. Then began this Nation of 
the United States to exist ; and where is any equal corrobera- 
tion of the imagined preexisting Nation of the United States? 
Spring Nations from naught ? Is man collectively endowed 
with creative power, that from nothing he speaks beings into 
existence ? Show the record, pronounce the name of the parties 
operating, declare the constituent elements of this mongrel body 
politic, or forever after hold thy peace as to this fanciful Nation 
that never existed until the compact of 1781 gave it life and 



52 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon '■'■ Reconstruction. [T, 2. 

being. Mr. Loring says, '• the Articles of Confederation consti- 
tuted the people " — the Peoples I should say — " of the States 
thus united, one Nation ; " and has he equal evidence of a pre- 
vious constitution of this Nation of the United States ? 

But even if the whole People of the United States had before 
been a Nation, v^^hich is without the slightest evidence, and is 
utterly denied, all prior rights and institutions were then merged 
in this written Constitution of Government, and the Nation of 
the United States was duly chartered thereunder. And, though 
denied by Mr. Loring and his coadjutors to have been a National 
Government, I affirm it to have been such an one ; and let us 
now consider its Sovereignty, as Mr. Loring himself truthfully 
presents it. Following the above extract he goes directly on to 
say — 

[18'*] Thcj- [the Articles of Coiifeileration,] were of essential importance in en- 
abling the Conjjrress to carry tliroiiuli the war. But after the peace, and wlien tlie 
bond of a common paramount interest and necessity had ceased, and State jealous- 
ies, rivalries, weaknesses, and selfishness had shown the entire insufficiency of such 
a compact for the necessary strenrrth and res])ectability of tlie nation abroad, and 
its internal peace and security at home, the people became conscious of the neces- 
sity of establisliing a closer bond of union as one people, under a common govern- 
ment, having internal as well as external sovereignty ; to whicli each citizen should 
owe a personal allegiance, and from which he might claim protection ; and whose 
powers for all national purposes should act upon each individual citizen directly, 
and not through the agency of State government. 

What can be a closer bond, what paramount to that of the 
State, according to Pufendorf's idea? Yet it appears that "a 
closer bond of union as one people" had been found necessary, 
both to maintain " the strength and respectability of the Nation 
abroad, and its internal peace and security at home." Is it not 
therefore evident that the Nation of the United States was in 
essential respects deficient of the requisites of an ordinary and 
perfect Nation ? Have they ever been supplied, and how ? 

Surely a true Nation with a genuine Sovereignty would have 
the inherent right and power to punish the individual subjects 
who might rise in revolt against it! yet was there some inhe- 
rent defect in this Nation, so that with entire correctness Mr. 
Loring says, — 

[19'"1 To be sure, no such act [breaking off from the Confederacy] would have 
constituted any personal crime on the part of an}^ inhabitant of such State against 
the General Government, because they owed personal allegiance to the State only. 

That idea accords with the Constitution of Massachusetts, 
and with the truth ; but is it not quite an admission for a be- 



§ 19.] U. S. Sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. 53 

liever in the Sovereignty of the United States Nation to make ? 
If the Nation lost the allegiance by the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, by what means has it been restored under the Constitu- 
tion ? But we accept the admission as to the Articles of Con- 
federation, which implies Sovereignty in the States, Mr. L., 
however, in the next paragraph, ignores this after a fashion : — 

[20i''J But the General Government would have had tiie clear and manifest risht, 
in such case, to interfere, and by force of war, if necessary, to compel conformity 
by the State to the general compact, and to enforce its requisitions if disobeyed. 
Civil war was tlius, indeed, the only remedy ; and it was to provide against this 
evil and weakness, among others, that the Constitution was established. But, if the 
result of any such war had been the subjugation of the State, it is clear that it 
would have been at the mercy of the victor as to terms of future readmission to 
the rights of the confederation. 

But is actual war by this National Sovereignty upon its sub- 
jects, requisite to enforce its authority ? Surely that is not the 
sort of enforcement sought for in the institution of States, and 
ours must be one of Pufendorf 's most remarkable irregulars, if 
that be our condition. Nor is this anomaly remedied by our 
Author's remarks in continuation which follow. But, en passant, 
it may be observed, that the Constitution proves no more effect- 
ive than the Articles of Confederation ; for still war must be re- 
sorted to, and Ihe result would have been the same under the lat- 
ter — perfect subjugation — as he claims is now acquired under 
the former. So that concerning the all-important prerogative of 
war, the learned jurist himself admits no change has been made 
by the Constitution. But we proceed with Mr. L.'s views : — 

[21'^] At the time, then, of the formation of the Constitution, the inhabitants of 
the thirteen States, retaining the internal sovereignties of each of them, were 
united as one people or nation in all that regarded external sovereignty, or any 
claimed or acknowledged national existence ; and were possessed of a vast extent 
of unoccupied territory as tenants in common and joint owners, which was to be 
divided into new States in imion with tliem, and composing with them a common 
country, so fast as it should become peopled ; and which was incapable of division 
or apportionment among them upon any principle on which it had been granted, — 
the only one recognized being that of a national domain. 

They liad become, therefore, essentially a nation under a government exercis- 
ing unqualified external sovereignty, possessed of a common country, and needing 
only the surrender to it of a portion of certain independent rights hitherto preserved 
by them as separate States, which interfered with tiieir enjoyment of the internal 
sovereignty essential for securing the blessing of a perfect nationality, and which 
the Constitution was destined to provide for. 

The term " essentialhj a Nation," is a qualification not de- 
scribed by Pufendorf. It implies some sort of imperfection. 
The chief, the essential powers of " external Sovereignty " were 



54 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

preserved ; but the minor, those of " internal Sovereignty " were 
wanting. No such division of Sovereignty, no such irreg- 
ular State or Nation, is recognized by Pufendorf. It appears, 
too, that there is a power that holds these " independent rights," 
which it must " surrender,^'' to secure " the blessing of a perfect 
Nationality." That power, then, has actually these " indepen- 
dent rights," and wherever that is possessed, there is the Sover- 
eignty ; which will be found to control not only " internal " but 
"external" affairs as well. Then couple with this idea the 
other important one, that to create a Federal Nation, it is not 
necessary to actually " surrender " any " independent rights," 
but merely come to an agreement to exercise them conjointly, 
and fix the terms and means; and it will be found a " perfect 
Nationality " for its purposes, and precisely that " for which the 
Constitution was destined to provide." 

Various other passages correctly exhibit the imperfection of 
the United States Nation, notwithstanding the improvement 
which the Articles of Confederation had made, which must be 
passed over, and we come next to consider — 

§ 20. U. S. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution. 

Summing up the imperfections of the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, Mr. Loring remarks, concerning the new Government: — 

[22-^'] But by the Constitution all this was changed. By its express terras, 
the national Government was no longer to consist of a confederation of States, to 
be administered by their respective delegates, but a governmeni of the whole peo- 
ple of the United States as one people, under one supreme sovereignty internally 
and externally so far as national sovereignty was concerned ; a government of 
which the people were to elect the legislators and rulers by their own personal 
votes, as representing them, and accountable directly to them, and not as repre- 
senting the States, or as accountable to them. 

Mere affirmation proves nothing. What we want is the evi- 
dence of this entire revolution. It is notorious, that the fears of 
the fathers, that the Constitution would effect indirectly, if not 
directly, precisely what Mr. L. here claims has been done, 
caused the entire opposition to its ratification. The majority 
of the Delegates in the Massachusetts Convention on first as- 
sembling, was opposed to it upon this very ground. But a 
lengthy discussion by men of all classes and all varieties of 
opinion, exhibited the necessity of giving the new system a 
trial ; and Theophilus Parsons, Samuel Adams, and others of 
that sagacious band, prepared important amendments to pro- 



§ 20.] U. S. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution. 55 

tect against those fears. With the understanding that those 
amendments should be immediately made,^ as the chief were, 
the Constitution was ratified by this Commonwealth, though 
by only 19 majority in 355 votes. Now, has this Constitution 
effected precisely what it was framed to guard against, and 
against which the amendments were made for still stronger 
security ? Has the fear that the Constitution would result in 
consolidation been proved well founded ? or has the system upon 
ample trial been found the most beneficent and successful ex- 
ample of Federalism that was ever devised ? Because we im- 
agine it is not Federal, is the chief occasion of our differences. 
Mr. Loring adds to the above : — 

[2.3'^i] In short, it established a " firm national government " as supreme in all 
things, touching its external and internal sovereignty over its subjects or citizens, 
as that possessed by any other government of any other nation. The existence 
of the several Slates as independent and sovereign in their municipal or domestic 
relations, and as having certain rights and powers as constituents of the General 
Government, was, indeed, fully provided for, and an equal representation was re- 
served to them in the Senate, — a most wise and salutary measure for the preser- 
vation of that independence and sovereignty, and for constituting a most important 
check upon the popular body representing the whole people. It is worthy of re- 
mark, that, while in the Articles of Confederation the sovereignty, freedom, and 
independence of eacli State, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly 
delegated to the United States in Congress assembled, are expressly reserved, not 
a word is found in the Constitution of omj sovei-ekjidi/ as derived from, or granted to, 
or existing in the States. On the contrary, the declaration that " the powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people," conclusively 
shows that the whole people of the United States, as one people, wei'e considered 
and intended to be recognized as the ultimate source of all national power and sov- 
ereignty. 

That 10th amendment which Mr. L. quotes, had much 
better have been adopted precisely as Parsons wrote it and 
Massachusetts proposed. But in Congress, not duly recognizing 
the important truth that the People constitute the State, but 
imagining the State Government to be the State, the confusing 
words, " or to the People," were added. 

But the reservation was not to the whole People of the 
United States. It was of course to the parties ratifying, as de- 
clared in the 7th Article, which provided that only nine of the 
United States should be sufficient to establish the new compact 

1 " Mr. Ames observed, that at length it is admitted that the Constitution, connected with 
the amendments, is good. Almost every one who has appeared against the Constitution, 
has declared that he approves it. with the amendments. One gentleman, who has been dis- 
tinguished by his zealous opposition, has declared that he would hold up both hands for it, 
if they could be adopted." — Journal of Convention, Feb. 5th. 



56 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Meconstruction." [T. 2. 

between them. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify 
until many months after the new Government had been insti- 
tuted. Yet was not the Constitution duly ratified by " the 
People of the United States " ? Did not the eleven States con- 
stitute truly the United States ? The Government of the 
United States went into full operation 30th April, 1789, upon 
Washington's inauguration ; but North Carolina not acceding 
until 21st November, and Rhode Island not till 29th March, 
1790, is proof conclusive that the words have no reference to the 
whole People of the thirteen States. Indeed, this amendment 
had been ratified by eight States before Rhode Island had ac- 
ceded; and she was the ninth State ratifying this and the 
other nine amendments on the 15th June. 

The whole People of the United States, as one Nation, never 
have had a voice in regard to the Constitution, either in its for- 
mation, ratification, or any single act that has ever transpired 
under it. The Delegates were appointed by the State Legis- 
latures, six States acting before Congress; in Convention was it 
framed by votes of States ; the clause of execution said, " Done 
in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States pres- 
ent" ; and it was signed by the States separately, and individu- 
ally by their Delegates. By States individually, too, it was 
ratified. The preamble and the 7th Article must be joined to 
ascertain the parties to them. The names of the States w^ere 
stricken out of the preamble by the Committee of Style, with- 
out any vote or instruction from the Convention, in order to 
make it harmonize with that 7th Article, it not being known 
what States would ratify. 

" It is worthy of remark " that the explicit reservation of Sov- 
ereignty, etc., in the Articles of Confederation, has proved in- 
sufficient to compel an acknowledgment of those prerogatives 
as then existing in the several States, on the part of those who 
choose to believe the United States have the Sovereignty, as 
this paper of Mr. L.'s demonstrates. It would have had as 
little effect in the present Constitution. Those who choose to 
study the elements of political science, can see how simple and 
easy it is to construct our National Union based upon State 
Sovereignty, making our system harmonious, and our docu- 
ments and insignia all correct and truthful. To those who 
prefer a contrary course, it matters very little as to what was 
said, or was not said. They will believe what they choose, and 



§ 20.] U. jS. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution. 57 

make our Governmental system a nondescript. And when an 
honest, true-hearted Citizen like Mr. Loring, starting off with 
" State Rights " in his heading as well as in his heart, can thus 
be whipped about to the utter denial of the fundamental princi- 
ples, of which, if there be truth in man, he was bound to give 
us a history, what is to be expected of us ordinary Citizens, so 
wholly absorbed in our every-day pursuits ? 

But do not the words Mr. Loring italicizes prove too much 
for his argument? If any effect was intended by the Constitu- 
tion touching the source of authority, the Right of Command, 
the Sovereignty, would not that instrument be the place of all 
others to find it? It having been distinctly reserved under the 
previous Constitution to each State, there it would be supposed 
to be found, until a change of this fundamental principle was 
distinctly announced. It was therefore unnecessary to speak of 
" any Sovereignty as derived from the States," because up to 
that time the source was comparatively w^ell known; the Sov- 
ereignty itself not only having been declared " retained " to 
them, but also " every power, jurisdiction, and right not ex- 
pressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." 
How supererogatory would it have been to speak of Sovereignty 
as " granted to, or existing in the States I " But not a syllable 
of that sort existing, is it not a necessary inference, and " worthy 
of remark," that the Sovereignty remained precisely as it w^as; 
and must not the Consolidist himself prove how, and when, and 
by whom the change he avers has been made ? Are not Mr. 
L.'s italics better placed for my argument than his ? 

Yet the principles' and the facts are so directly against the 
schemes of these Consolidists, that they are compelled to resort 
to all sorts of shifts and expedients to make the least show of an 
argument ; not to say that they are guilty of downright fraud, 
which is incredible. They mean to be honest ; but the desire to 
carry their point leads to mischievous errors and perversions. 
Hence, even a discreet advocate like Mr. Loring, without due 
examination, clenches his argunient, as he supposes, by remark- 
ing upon the tautological words of that 10th amendment : — 

[24"] The States were to enjoy all the powers they originally possessed not pro- 
hibited to tlieni, and certain very important new powers granted to them, by the 
Constitution ; the government of the United States was to possess all the powers 
thereby vested in it expressly or by necessary implication ; and the inhabitants of 
all the States, collectively as one people, were made the depository of all other power 
whatsoever. 



58 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'" [T. 2. 

Every power and right granted to the United States is dis- 
tinctly announced. On the other hand, important restrictions 
are put upon what the States may do. Is it not evident that 
there is some power independent of Mr. Loring's Nation, that 
(grants, or delegates — as the corrective amendment better ex- 
presses the act — to it certain powers, and which also puts some 
constraint upon the exercise of others ? While this necessarily 
implies subordination of the United States, as of a delegate to 
a delegator, it does not imply subordination on the part of the 
States individually, if united in a Federal Republic, for Vattel 
thus sums up the wisdom of the chief authorities: — 

Several sovereign and independent States may unite tliemselves together by a 
perpetual Confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect State. 
They will together constitute a Federal llepublic : their joint deliberations will not 
give any attaint to the Sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain 
respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engage- 
ments. A person does not cease to be free and independent when he is obliged to 
fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted. 

While, then, the Sovereignty in Mr. Loring's Nation is sub- 
ordinated, this is guarded against in a Federal Republic, each 
State possessing its Sovereignty. And if further credence can 
be given to principles, touching the point of indivisibility, it 
will be seen that the United States cannot have any Sov- 
ei'eignty, but the States )na,y have it still under the Constitution. 
And the prima facie evidence of its existence in the State, 
which Mr. Loring will admit the Constitution of Massachusetts 
affords, with the positive declaration of the second of the Ar- 
ticles of Confederation, must be received as conclusive testi- 
mony thereto, until something stronger and countervailing is 
adduced. Yet see the results of Mr. Loring's argument in 
extracts [48 j^^ and \^9fK 

Not the first particle of evidence can be brought to show that 
the United States as one single consolidated People, ever per- 
formed a single act in that capacity; and so far from being 
made the depository of the reserve of powers, that amendment 
was itself adopted to prevent the United States from exercising 
any one power not delegated to that Agency. 

As before intimated, p. 55, our Author is only following 
distinguished lead. It was Ellsworth, as I recollect, who 
moved to add the superfluous words to the 10th amendment, — 
'' or to the People." Had he then proposed to put Government 
after State, the superfluity would have been evident. But 



§ 20,] U. S. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution. 59 

that sound State-rights patriot, if not perfect in his theoretic 
knowledge, never would have made his motion, could he have 
anticipated the use made of it by Mr. Loring. 

But would not the reserve of powers be found of course in the 
party that has the power to delegate? Is not Mr. Loring's 
affirmation, then, rather strong for his case? Please observe, it 
is the Nation of the United States, which from the very begin- 
ning, according to his theory, has had the Sovereignty, and of 
course all the powers of Sovereignty ; yet here he declares that 
this his sovereign Nation, which sometimes is the Government 
sometimes the United States, sometimes as here the People of 
the United States, is actually " made the depository of all other 
power whatsoever ! " Having the power already in its own 
right, who is this that assumes to make it a depository of its 
power? Those italics v^ould be forcible as to a new nationality, 
but scarcely befit the dignity of Mr. Loring's fatherly Nation, 
which possesses such generative powers, that he has even States 
for his sons. 

Credit must be given Mr. Loring for candor, at all events. 
His powers of deglutition, too, are not easily excelled, for no 
bones stick. He makes even the States themselves subor- 
dinate to the Constitution, owing it allegiance, — puts the 
creature above the creator — and speaking of State rights, he 
says : — 

[25'-''] All these potvers, rights, and immunities were created hij the Constitution, and 
made dependent upon its authority. They have no other origin, no other right to 
be; and necessarily involve, upon every principle of public or civil law, justice and 
good faith, corresponding obligations for obedience to its authority and fidelity to 
its support. 

So far, therefore, is the proposition that the States created the Constitution, so 
often asserted, from being true, that the reverse is much more nearly so. It was 
the Constitution which conferred all the rights which the States derived under it, 
and now have, as original grants. It was the people of the United States which 
thus created and defined the individtial, corporate, and political rights of all the 
parties to it.^ 

1 Dr. Jarvis, in the Massachusetts Convention of ratification, 1788, had a different opin- 
ion. Said he: — 

"Let us inquire then. Sir, under what authority ive are acting; ami to wliat tribunal we are 
amenable. Is it then. Sir, from the late Federal Convention, that we derive our authority ? Is it from 
Congress, or is it even from the Legislature itself ? It is from neither, Sir ; we are convened in riglit 
of the People, as their immediate Representatives, to execute the most important trust which it is pos- 
sible to receive, and we are accountable in its execution, to GOD only, and our own consciences." 

As Representatives of the Sovereign Commonwi^alth, empowered to this special duty, 
they could have no responsibihty except to the State and to their God, according to the 
oath they swore. But I am not touching the argument at all, only sliowing how our states- 
men of ^lassachusetts differ in opinion. 

( A good friend, in correcting my proofs, marks on the margin : " Jarvis says ' People,' 



60 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '-'■ Reconstruction.'"' [T. 2. 

Let not the-Reader do our Author the injustice to imagine that 
such a presentment as that comes forth under the original head 
of "State Rights — preliminary history of." Mr. Loring's head 
has not obtained such effectual mastery of his heart as to permit 
that outrage of propriety ; a more appropriate heading having 
been already substituted, as follows: " The Constitution — For- 
mation of, and individual and State Rights and Duties under 
it," (I have to italicize that word). 

As to argument upon that point, it is wholly out of the ques- 
tion. Is it possible to doubt the soundness of the first para- 
graph, so substantial, positive 'an affirmative premise ? Is not the 
" therefore" well placed, and the conclusion irresistible? Who 
could desire a more perfect specimen of synthetic argument ? 
A priori is it truly, which being my special delight must not be 
marred by my " 'prentice hand." ^ 

Would this learned jurist, however, receive the truth even as 
he himself teaches it, and in his very next paragraph, lucid as 
that argument has made it, the case would be made yet clearer. 
And here Mr. Loring not having done himself justice, some ital- 
icizing, etc., of my own is given. With him say I — 

[2G-J] The only authors or framers of the Constitution were the inhabitants of 
tiie several States in their primary capacities, [wliat else is that but Aristotle's 

not ' States.' " But by whose authority was the Convention heldV Who sent the Dele- 
gates'? Was it the whole People of the United States, or of the Commonwealth of Jlassa- 
chusettsV Do not the People constitute the State'? Are the Citizens truly n Peo/j/e, un- 
less they constitute a State'? Says John (Rev. x. 11), " many Peoples, and Nations, and 
tontfues, and kings"; and in xvii. 15, " Peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." 
The State is the People, and nofhiiu/ the, as defined, § 8. Because that truth is not re- 
garded in the 10th amendment, is precisely its fault; and the resulting tautology is very 
misleading, as we see in the use made of it by our Author.) 

1 That entire confidence may be placed in the ratiocinative process and its result, an 
example is taken from article No. 2, of an argument based upon premises of Congress and 
of Judge Curtis, proving the same complete subordination of the States to the Union, or to 
the Supreme National Sovereignty: — 

[E 75] " From these two principles or propositions above cited, and the further one stated in 
the letter, tiiat the only rightful objects of the war ' are not the destruction of one or more States, 
but their preservation; not the destruction of the Government in a State, but the ristorntion-of it$ 
government to a republican form of got-frnmenl in linrmony ifith the Constitution,' the further 
conclusion is logically inevitable, that during the rebellion, and until sucli re-organization, the in- 
habitants of those States did not compo>!e States in the Union under the Constitution, and were not 
entitled to any political power and privileges as such ; although such inhabitants continued to be 
within the Union as citizens of the United States, and subject to the authority of the national Govern- 
ment. And upon these three concessions or postulates, — namely , that the Government of the.se United 
States might rightfully subdue the people of the States in rebellion by force of arms ; that such people 
during the rebellion, and until the authority of the Constitution and the laws was restored and estab- 
lished, did not conipo.se States under the Constitution, and had no right nor power to org.anize them- 
selves into such States ; and tliat the Government of the United States is the rightful judge of the time 
when such authority has been restored and established, and such re-organization may take place, — it 
is believed that the claims of Congress might safely be rested, as substantially controlling all the other 
positions taken in the letter, saving that of the new construction above alluded to.'- 



§ :20.] U. S. Sovereignty under the Present Constitution. 61 

wliole, which exists before the parts?) as tlie acknowledged fountains of all political 
power [admirable application of Pufendorf!) who thus changed the organizations 
and political constitutions of the several States, [as only the "fotin/ains of all politi- 
cal power " can do] ; taking from them certain hitherto existing independent cor- 
porate powers and immunities, [not so independent, however, as to be independent 
of the control of this transferring power,] and investing them with certain new pow- 
ers, immunities, and rights, not before enjoyed ; imposing upon them certain new 
duties and obligations in order to adapt them to tiie new order of things ; [hut 
this, directly contrary to the purposes of all but the few who sought consolidation, 
he imagines brings this result — ] and uniting themselves as one consolidated na- 
tion or people, in which all political power, not thus otherwise disposed of, was 
declared to be thereafter forever deposited. 

If with such correct premises an ingenious lawyer will work 
out such a result, of what avail would have been any counteract- 
ing declarations in the instrument itself? And if the positive, 
unmistakable declarations of our fundamental documents and 
insignia, when conflicting with our Author's predetermined con- 
victions, have no power to resist his conclusions, what could 
arguments avail? 

Therefore it is foreign to the present purpose to prove Mr. 
Loring is wrong, the sole object being to exhibit some of the 
difficulties that the wisest and best of men may fall into under 
the guidance of a distorting head, and in spite, not only of a 
good heart, but of good headings, too ; for the second is equally 
perfect with the first, duties being possible even on the part of 
Sovereign States. If any difficulties have become apparent, it 
is equally apparent that they arise from his choosing to conflict 
with our fundamental documents ; and still are there — 

§ 21. Other Points of Difficulty in Mr. Loring's 
Argument. 

The former part of our Author's paper has been considered, 
and almost in its precise order, which lays the groundwork of 
an extensive argument about Reconstruction. The object he and 
I agree to pursue. But do his premises and arguments tend 
towards reconstructing our system of Federal Republican De- 
mocracy, as founded by the fathers, or to a Consolidated Aris- 
tocracy? That would not be reconstruction, but constructing 
another system de novo. 

Mr. Loring, with the skiU of a master of this masterly sub- 
ject, properly begins with determining as to the party, whether 
State or Nation, which has the Sovereignty. That correctly 
ascertained and well established, other points in the discussion 
naturally result. This, then, being the prime object of consider- 



02 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''' [T. 2. 

ation, it has been our endeavor to test the correctness of his opin- 
ions as to the Nationality and Sovereignty of the United States, 
1st, anterior to the Confederation ; 2d, under the Articles of Con- 
federation, or first Constitution ; and, 3d, under the present Con- 
stitution. But cui bono ? 

The most one could hope to accomplish with these learned 
jurists, is to lead them to review their own premises and argu- 
ments ; nor is aught else requisite.^ The chief difficulty lies in 
the very simplicity of the case. Modern writers have so mystified 
and confused the science of politics, that to find a truth to be 
plain and simple, is to make doubtful its applicability to Govern- 
ment. So that writers should endeavor less to convince learned 
civilians like Mr. Loring, than to call attention to a line of in- 
quiry that of late seems to have been overlooked, and see if it 
prove not a more excellent way than that hitherto pursued, to 
investigate the nature of our Union, and the rights and wrongs 
of these Sovereign States. 

And as the endeavor should be not merely to point out errors, 
but to find an efficacious antidote, instead of pursuing the thread 
of our Author's argument, which reels off naturally from the 
misjudged premises, let us endeavor to find some of the difficult 
and weak spots, that we may ascertain the occasion of his fal- 
lacies. The seat of the disease must be correctly ascertained, 
to apply an adequate remedy ; the root of a difficulty must be 
reached to its eftc'ctual extermination.'-^ That there are difficul- 
ties and weak spots in Mr. Loring's argument, could they only 
be discovered, is quite possible ; for in defiance of Whewell, 
Whately, and Aristotle, — 

§ 22. Mr. Loring's Conclusions diverge from his Premises. 
As we have seen, Mr. Loring's opinions of principles and of 

1 Precisely as Mr. Loriiiy; concludes as to Judge Curtis" premises, will be the conclusion 
of our candid Author as to his own, should these points of ditHculty prove to have real foun- 
dation. Says he in No. 2, (which in the pamphlet concludes chapter 1) : — 

[f 81] •' These premises therefore, it is believed, may be laid aside as being either irrelevant to any 
question in issue, or, if susceptible of any seeming relevancy, being so only npon the assumption or 
supposition of facts having no existence.'" 

2 Said the author of " Political Sketches,"' a writer of 1787, criticizing Abbe Mably's 
errors concerning America: — 

" To detect as well as to applaud, is the mingled office of criticism. Of all the duties of taste, this 
is the least enviable. In the natural world, a transition from beauty to ugliness is a painful operation 
to the feelings ; but it is infinitely more irksome in speculative contemplations, when the imagination, 
unassisted by the .senses, has to work in the violence of extremes, and the judgment has to combat 
that delusion which the tissue of truth and sophistry forms in the etchings of the mental picture." 



§ 22.] 3Ir. Loring's Conchisions diverge from his Premises. 63 

facts are not in perfect harmony with our authoritative docu- 
ments, and with political science. But like every departure from 
truth's straight line, his argument appears inconsistent with it- 
self; his conclusions not flowing from his main premises, but 
from others interpolated, and his premises leading to conclusions 
diametrically opposed to his theory. 

Starting with the hypothesis of the unquestionable Nationality 
and Sovereignty of the United States, he comes to the impossible 
result, that this Sovereignty has superadded the rights of con- 
quest over its own subjects ; and while admitting that the 
seceded States as bodies politic are the guilty and responsible 
parties, he yet holds each Citizen of the seceded States guilty 
of treason against the United States, having actually forfeited 
his life, and property, and his every right. Let us first see the 
evidence of these contradictions, and then ascertain their origin, 
and what is the truth. And first — 

§ 23. Mr. Loring's Nation conquers itself. 

To make more distinct and emphatic the present Nationality 
and Sovereignty of the United States, Mr. Loring, under a new 
heading, " States under the Constitution — Rights of Represen- 
tation in Congress — Conditions of — Effects of State Rebel- 
lion"; presents the view^s in extract [5]^^, wherein the magic 
power of the Constitution is exhibited. Instead of the States 
establishing the Constitution, as the 7th article declares, it is 
itself the source of all State power I and grateful ought these 
Citizens of this Supreme Nationality to be, that in any sense 
they may still consider themselves Citizens of their respective 
States. And with such a Sovereignty, sure and unmistakable, 
now see the incredible results of rebellion against it. So infa- 
mous is such treason, that whether successful or not, it actually 
destroys their own State Governments : — 

[27'^'^] Wlien, therefore, the rebeUion was subdued, it is manifest that there were 
no governments existing in the rebel States, in conformity with the Constitution, or 
wliicli could entitle their inhabitants to the exercise of any political powers under it. 

The people of these States were, as to the United States, witliout any civil gov- 
ernment which that of the United States was bound to respect, and subject entirely 
to its military authority, or to such governments as it should see fit to impose, 
until State governments, in conformity to the Constitution, should be again con- 
structed. 

All their inhabitants who had voluntarily taken part in the rebellion were crimi- 
nals, who, as individual citizens, had forfeited their right to property, liberty, and 
life under the laws, for their attempt to destroy the Government of their country ; 
and had in the same manner forfeited and lost their corporate rights of representa- 



64 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

tion and participation in its Government. And as they could only be restored to 
the former, bv authority of the Government, so it alone was to restore the latter. 
Those States, as to any organized constitutional government entitling them to 
representation in that of the United States, were utterly "without form, and void." 
[28''']. Considering, tlien, tiie proposition established, that the inhabitants of the 
disloyal States, by their rebellion and open war against the United States, had 
abandoned, lost, or forfeited all civil and political rights under the Constitution, 
including those of representation in Congress, the next inquiry is when and in what 
manner such rights might revert or be restored to them. 

Had their rights been lo^t by conquest, the result would be 
natural and comprehensible; for though the State itself be no 
tabula rasa to be wiped out of existence — is Hanover destroyed 
by Prussia, or has the former merely ceased to be free and inde- 
|)endent ? — yet may it be conquered, the conqueror obtaining 
over it every right which the Law of Nations allows ; and one 
of the rights is, undoubtedly, to extinguish the State, by incor- 
poration, consolidation, with the conquering State; and much 
more may the Government be destroyed. But the idea is, that 
neither by conquest, nor by the sovereign power of the conqueror, 
have the seceded States or their Governments been destroyed. 
Mere " rebellion," under this mongrel Government of ours, ipso 
facto destroys all civil Government.^ Nor is rebellion and trea- 

1 Quite pos.sihly tlie reasoning i.s too close for me to ajiprehend, for it certainly is not clear 
iiow ]Mr. Loring's premises can be made to agree with his conclusions, even in his first letter; 
and in liis second, the rights of conquest, under his thimble-rigging, seem to become a jjer- 
fect little-joker — " now you see it, now you don't " : — 

[ G wj >' It is undoubtedly true, that the Government, upon the subjugation of the armies of the rebels 
and resumption of possession of their territories, has acquired no new title, but is in such possession 
by virtue of the old one. And the result would be the same, if, instead of the hostile possession taken 
by the rebels, it had been one taken by a foreign invading enemy. No one can question, that, in the 
latter case, if the invaders were so numerous, and had been so long in possession, as to render their 
expulsion or extermination impossible, the Government could impo.se upon them such terms of perma- 
nent submission to its authority, and for protection of its loyal subjects tiiere remaining, as it should 
think proper. And upon what principle can it be denied that the Government has the like right in 
reference to its rebellious citizens, who, far more criminal than any invaders could have been, have 
long held hostile possession of these territories, and from whom securities for future obedience to the 
Constitution and the laws, and for the protection of the loyal citizens residing among them from cruel 
persecution, are demanded alike by justice and himianity, and the national safety ? 

"And if it be true, as is conceded, that the United States, upon the subjugation of the rebellion, ' are 
in possession, not under a new title, as conquerors, but under their old title as tlie lawful Government 
of the country,' it is none the less true that the Government re-assumes its sway over citizens whose 
condition has been radically changed by the rebellion, and with powers over them which it never before 
pos.oessed. Instead of loyal subjects, entitled to perfect immunity in the rights of property, liberty, 
and life which it could not impair, it finds them criminals, who have forfeited all such immunity, and 
who stand liable to be bereft of all those blessings under the laws which they have violated. Nor can 
such immunity be restored to them, but by its pardoning grace, and upon such terms of submission 
and security for future good behavior as its sense of justice and of political expediency may dictate. 
And it is not perceived why, upon the same principles, the Government has not the right to impose the 
like terms or conditions of restoration to their former political rights and privileges in the councils of 
the nation." 

Are the lirst sentences of these two parngrajjhs in harmony V TIow has the Government 
" sway over Citizens whose condition has been radically changed by the rebellion, and with 
|)o\vers over them which it never before possessed; " and yet "has acquired uo new title 



§ 23.] Mr. Loring's Nation conquers iUelf. 65 

son confined to the individual Citizens. The States themselves 
are equal culprits. Says Mr. Loring : — 

[2'.)"-J Now, by the rebellion, which was in the name and by the a«serteil powers 
and authority of tiie several rebel States, assuming to act in their political capac- 
ities, it is manifest that all their respective constitutions or governments contem- 
plated by the Constitution of the United States, or in conformity therewith, were 
entirely abolished ; and that entirely new ones were substituted, having no affinity 
with those remaining as loyal States in the Union, and none of the elements which 
were necessary to entitle tlieir inhabitants to participate in any rights of represen- 
tation in tlie national Government. The governments, wiiich they had before rebel- 
lion, were founded upon the unity of the people of all the States as one people or 
nation, owing jiersoiial allegiance, and upon well-defined and established constitu- 
tional relations to the central Government ; and could not be lawfully organized 
without the taking of the oath of such allegiance by every legislative, judicial, and 
executive officer of the State. They were also possessed of certain limited powers, 
prescribed by the (/Onstitution, and were under numerous specified obligations to 
the General Government ; all which were essential elements of their nature us Slates 
under the Constitution, and on which the political rights of their inhabitants to be 
represented in the General Government were founded. But those governments, in 
all their essential relations to that of the United States under the Constitution, were 
utterly abrogated by the rebellion ; and new ones were substituted, founded on the 
denial of any such national unity, or any such allegiance, relations, limits, or obli- 
gations. Nothing could be more entire than the total abolition of the old State 
governments as they existed at the formation of the Constitution, and continued up 
to the time of the rebellion. 

Mr. Loring had previously observed : — 

[30^^] It follows, therefore, that, if the State, of which any citizen of the United 
States is an inhabitant, be not one duly organized, or otherwise be not in commun- 
ion with the other States, in obedience to the Constitution and the laws, or shall 
have become by repudiation or any other cause not entitled to the rights and privi- 
leges of a State under the provisions of them, no inhabitant of such State can claim 
the right to exercise the franchise, however loyal he personally maj' be to the Gen- 
eral Government, or however zealously he may have opposed such disorganization, 
repudiation, or rebellion, and so be an unwilling victim to its consequences. 

Our Author merely sets forth the natural effects, consequences 
flowing from "rebellion" against his National Sovereignty. In 
all fairness and frankness he admits that the States themselves 
are the guilty parties ; and as these States certainly had Gov- 
ernments, and as every Citizen is bound not only to obey his 
Government, but as he argues [29]*"^ to render it allegiance also, 
he perceives the difficulties of " the Citizen of a contumacious or 
rebellious State." He is a traitor to his State if he do not 
obey her behest ; he is a traitor to the United States if he do. 
Such are the legitimate effects of our folly in disregarding our 

hut is in such possession by virtue of the old one? " But this is quoted mainly as confirm- 
atory of the terrible results of " rebellion," and that nothing else can save such malefactors 
but the " pardoning grace " of this supreme yet fatherly Government. 
5 



6(j Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

Saviour's maxim, and endeavoring to subject these unfortunate 
Citizens to two masters ! And though it would move a heart 
of iron, the laws of National Sovereignty are inexorable, and 
Mr. L. goes on to say : — 

[ol*'] It may seem a hardship upon tlie individual to be thus deprived of a 
riftht or privilege by the fault of others to which he is no voluntary party ; but it is 
an unavoidable consequence of his political condition as the citizen of a contuma- 
cious or rebellious State, rendering personal discrimination impossible. 

Tins rule, founded in unavoidable necessity, applies, with the semblance of still 
greater hardship, to the property of innocent inhabitants of a State in rebellion 
against the national Government. If a State having jurisdiction of a definite terri- 
tory, of whicJi it is possessor, rebel against the sovereign national Government, and 
actual war has arisen between tliem, such territory is by public law considered to 
be enemies' territory, and all property within its limits, to whomsoever belonging, 
as enemies' property, giving strength and resources to the enemy, and, as such, 
]ial)le to capture and condemnation ; so that, in the late rebellion, a vessel be- 
longing to iniiabitants of Riclmiond, and captured by a national vessel, was ad- 
judged lawful prize, although the owners were citizens of the United States, and 
claimed that they had always been and were loyal to them, and in no sense volun- 
tary parties to the rebellion. (Prize Cases, 2 Black's United States Reports, 635.) 

These seem to be inevitable results from the hypothesis with 
which Mr. Loring starts, that our system is based upon Sover- 
eignty in tlie Uuited States. This is his main premise. His 
chief conclusion is, that we have obtained the rights of conquest 
over the seceded States. Are not the two totally incompatible ? 
That we have the rights of conquest is a fact unquestionable. 
How then can Mr. Loring's hypothesis as to United States 
Sovereignty be true ? ' 

1 Ttie case seems quite definitely presented in the first paper, but it is somewhat per- 
fected in the second, where Mr. Loring describes the process of State suicide — fdo de ie. : — 

[//78] " No one can honestly deny, that the war was originally inaugurated, declared, and carried on 
by the people of the rebel States in pursuance of a long-cherished design to dismember the Government 
of the United States, to destroy the Union, and to erect a huge Southern slave empire on a portion of 
its ruins ; and that the Government of the United States, from the beginning to the end of it, was act- 
ing purely and solely on the defensive, to save itself and the Union from destruction, according to the 
duty imposed upon it by the Constitution ; and that so far from its having been instrumental in the 
destruction of those States, or of any of their relations to the Union, or seeking any such destruction, 
its solo object has been to save them from it. 

" It is true, that their relations to the Union, as States under the Constitution, have been destroyed. 
But that destruction was the work of their own hands, not that of the national Government. It was 
they who, repudiating the (Jonstitution and authority of the United States, abolishing their former 
governments established under them, sundering all the relations which could constitute them States in 
the Union, and establishing a foreign and hostile government, waged open war upon the Government 
of the United States to accomplish its destruction. And is it not, in the face of these facts, a mar- 
vellous perversion to talk of them as beiug destroyed, or of their destruction as being sought by that 
government? Or to say that any thing which the Government has done, is doing, or can do, render.s 
it in any degree accountable for their destruction? Is it not undeniable, that they themselves, alone, 
have been guilty of the most criminal xelf-destruction as States under the Constitution ? that they 
have died by their own hands, and not by the hands of the United States? and that all which is left 
for the United States to do is to aid in their resurrection from the graves dug by themselves ' 

" It is in the light of these facts that we are to judge of the justness of the position above refen-ed to ; 
namely, that for the Government of the United States to acquire that absolute right over the people of 
a State and its territory which results from conquests in a foreign war is the same thing as to destroy 



§ 23.] Mr. Loring^s Nation conquers itself. 67 

Mr. Loring, however, perceives no difficulty in the case, for 
he thus argues : — 

[32^8] They, during and after the rebelUon, were States in possession of defined 
territories, and under organized governments to wliich they professed allegiance. 
And they were clearly in the Union, in so far as tiieir territories, people, and 
amenability to the Constitutiou and laws of the Union are concerned. The national 
Government still maintained its right of ten-itorial jurisdiction over them, and of 
enforcing obedience to the Constitution and the laws, as fully as it ever had ; and 
their inhabitants remained citizens of the Union, and entitled to all the civil and 
political rights and immunities which they ever possessed as such, excepting those 
which they had forfeited or lost or abandoned by their treason. 

By that treason, each inhabitant has foi-feited his liberty and life as the penalty 
of his crime, if the Government :«hall see fit to exact it by due process of law ; but, 
until arrest and sentence under such conviction, he is still entitled to protection and 
immunity, and the enjoyment of all the civil rights which lie ever had resulting 
from such merely individual citizenship. And he may be restored to tlie future 
undisturbed enjoyment of them by an act of amnesty of the General Government, 
or by a pardon from the Executive after conviction and sentence. 

But, with regard to the political rights of the inhabitants of a State in its cor- 
porate political capacity, — those of representation in the House and Senate, for 
instance, — these, as has above been shown, do not rest upon nor result from their 
individual citizenship, as citizens of the United States merely, but depend also . 
upon the political relations which the State bears to the Union, and cease to exist 
whenever it has suspended, lost, forfeited, or abandoned the rigiits belonging to it 
as a State in its normal relations to the Government ; and can be restored only by 
restoration of the State to those relations. 

Such being, then, the condition of the States lately in rebellion, what are tlie 
rights and duties of the General Government in regard to them, and to the restora- 
tion of their relations, rights, and privileges as equal States in the Union ? 

If that prove not how a Nation could conquer itself, logic has 
at last found a subject beyond its mastery. And although Sol- 
omon thought there was " nothing new under the sun," it will 
have to be conceded, that for a Nation to conquer itself, and 
just exactly as it would a foreign Nation, is rather a novelty in 
ordinary books of the law.^ That Jonah swallowed the whale 

the State. This word "State," as used in this connection, in order to have any sensible meaning, 
must be construed to mean a State under the Constitution, and preserving its constitutional relations 
to the Union. And how, after the people of it have themselves destroyed it, and the Government has 
conquered them in a long and bloody war, the exercise of any rights of conquest in order to compel 
them to return to their allegiance, or to make it secure from future violation, is the same thing as de- 
stroying it, is not clear to every comprehension. If it was already destroyed, as such a State, by its 
own people, the rights of conquest could add nothing to such destruction, however exercised ; and surely 
not, if exercised solely for its restoration." 

Could one desire a sounder argument? That is another natural flow from Mr. Loring's 
premises, and leads to the conclusion in extract [/^] 6^. Monarchs will all fall in love with 
our Republicanism, and rush for Rh-. Loring's National Sovereignty, that makes rebellion 
not only superlatively heinous and odious, but results in felo dt se. How appropriate the 
punishment! and then it is self-inflicted, saving the nerves of delicate Monarchs. 

1 Fortunately, that second article supplies a good solid block for this vacuum : — 

[i96] " Mr. Dana annexes a very elaborate note upon the subject of belligerent rights incident to 
civil war, both in regard to the parties to it and to foreign nations, but suggests no distinction between 
the rights of victory in that and those of victory in a foreign war. And it is believed that no such difi. 



68 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'" [T. 2. 

would be somewhat of a marvel; but here the whale swallows 
itself. Yet this philosophic r(>suU, and those introduced by Mr. 
Loring, seem legitimate and natural to his argument. So that 
it appears necessary to inquire — 

§ 24. Would subduing a Rebellion give Rights of Con- 
quest ? 

If, as Mr. Loring argues, " the nature of the relations of the 
several States to the United States, is obviously pure matter of 
law," as it undoubtedly is ; very certainly must the recent civil 
war be regarded, and its resulting consequences construed ac- 
cording to the code applicable; and this whole question of a 
sovereign Nation conquering its own subjects, being one in 
which our Author appears to be a leader, let us follow his lead : 

[33''^ I Tlie nature of the political relations of the several States to the United 
Stales is obviously pure matter of law. Any question concerning the violation or 
forfeiture of tlicin, or the right of restoration to tliom if lost or forfeited, is also a 
pure question of law, and one which must of necessity be decided. All these and 
cognate questions are not outside of the Constitution, but are questions under it, 
affecting its existence and the existence of the Union, and must be decided : the 
nation's life is at stake upon them. If, then, no other tribunal has been appointed 
for their decision, the General Government has supreme authority to decide them : 
or, if they are of a nature to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, still the 
present decision, for the time being, until the question can be brought before that 
tribunal, if it ever could be, must be by the General Government ; for a present 
decision one way or the otlier by it must be made. Inaction is as much a decision 
against the right, as action is one in favor of it. It has therefore tlie final, or if not 
the final, the immediate right of decision ; and such decision is its present first duty 
under tlie clauses above stated. No one will dispute that the settlement of these 
questions is essential to " tlie common defence and general welfare of the United 
States." No one can question that Congress is invested with full powers to " pro- 
vide for that defence and welfare." And no one can point out. any other tribunal 
by which tiie nature of them can be adjudged, and the pro])er remedy applied. 

Having well laid his premises in the fust three sentences — 
these, too, are sound — and having shown what principles are to 
rule, he says, " If, then " — and runs otl upon the " tribunal." That 
is not the law ; but this is a genuine non scfjuitur. 

It is rather his misfortune than fault, however, that other 
authors have failed to present principles to suit his argument. 

tinction is anywhere intimatej by any writcrupon public law. If it had bt'on, it could not have escaped 
this learned and tliorouRli master of the subject. It .seems inipcssible to believe, that, if tlie broad dif- 
ference contended for were contemplated by them as having le;;;al existence, they should never have 
made allu.sion to it ; and equally incredible, that, if founded on any sound principle, it should not liavo 
occurred to their minds. So far, therefore, as their opinions may l>c inferred both from their language 
and their silence, it is believed that they may be con.sidered as rejecting any such distinction." 

Probably Mr. Dana made no very extensive researches upon the point; but I am willing 
to voucii for the correctness of that paragraph, though perhaps sliglitly dilTering wilJi our 
Author as to the reason. 



§ 23.] Would subduing a Rebellion give Rights of Co7Lquest? * 69 

What law he found we shall soon have the benefit of; and if 
not quite as applicable as would be desirable, let no one blame 
Mr. Loring.^ 

His deficiency in the law, though, some may think is amply 
supplied by his own practical considerations ; for after seizing 
the only passage he could find [SO]^^ — ^nd that not quite ger- 
mane to his hypothesis — he finds in [Alf^ " War the only pos- 
sible solution of a controversy between one of the States and 
the Government of the United States ; " and in [48]'''2 the re- 
sults are portrayed ; which is followed by [43]*** and [44]*^^ put- 
ting limits upon the rights of conquest. " This view " of the 
law thus far, draws forth the practical considerations of [58]^*^* ; 
and it would seem that finding it easier to argue from these 
practical considerations which he could supply in profusion, 
than from legal principles which were not forthcoming suitable 
to his hypothesis, the head lets the heart run on after this 
manner : — 

[34*"] It surely cannot be pretended with any show of reason, that the States 
recently in rebellion could become entitled to immediate restoration of their former 
political powers and privileges, merely upon the laying down of their arms and 
professions of submission to the (Constitution and the laws, if it should be satisfac- 
torih' apparent that such surrender and professions were a mere subterfuge in order 
to obtain a suspension of hostilities with the intention of renewing them at a more 
favorable opportunity, or if they were made with the view of using those political 
powers and privileges as the means of accomplishing in another mode the same 
purposes for which they had been waging the war. 

This would be to render the contest, and the victory purchased at such cost of 
life and treasure, barren and worthless indeed. Obvious justice and the humblest 
common sense alike dictate that the right to secure peace and future security, the 
only desired fruits of the conflict, is no less clear than the right to fight for them ; 
and that, if it was humane and just for the nation to enter upon the war and sacri- 
fice the lives of such hecatombs of the best and bravest of her sons and sucli incal- 
culable treasure to protect the (Constitution and the Union from violation and dis- 
ruption, it can be no less humane and just to exact, as the condition of restoring 
her rebellious children to their former political powers and privileges under them, 
reasonable security against the repetition of the crime, whether in the field of battle 
or in the halls of legislation. 

Nor in this connection is it to be forgotten, that the political powers and privi- 
leges to which immediate restoration is thus claimed are not any which the Gov- 

1 Most certainly not, for Mr. Loring does his best to make it applicable by applying the 
same extract over again; and by practice becoming more assured of its applic;\tion, instead 
of the weak declaration of [■i0]80, our Author gives it this introduction: — 

[_/9J] '< The entire identity of the rights and powers incident to victory in civil war with those of vic- 
tory in foreign war is broadly and clearly laid down in the elementary writers on public law of the 
highest authority. It is so necessary to have this material element in the argument immediately be- 
fore the reader, that no other apology is necessary for repeating the citation from Vattel above made in 
another connection. He states the principle thus : " — 

Vattel is good authority; but upon that point it would be well to cite several, if possible, 
so that we could see who are agreed, and how agreement is brought about. 



70 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

ernment of the United States has voluntarily taken away from the rebel States, 
either as punishment for their offence or as indemnity for the future ; but are 
those only which they themselves deliberately and wickedly cast away, repudiated, 
and abandoned, in perpetration of the blackest and most fearful crime known in 
human society, — tlie blackest and most fearful, because involving, not only the 
breach of the most solemn obligations, but of necessity also the ruin of numberlesis 
happy families, the sacrifice of hosts of precious lives, the loss of countless treas- 
ures of national wealth and industry, — the crime of parricide against tiie most 
humane and parental government the world ever looked upon, against which they 
could not allege one instance of wrong or oppression ; the crime of fratricide, 
involving the shedding of torrents of brothers' blood, the making desolate of hun- 
dreds of domestic hearths, and the shrouding of thousands of liomes in mourning 
to terminate only in the grave. Surely, it is not for tliose guilty of crimes like 
these, with hands stained with the blood of their victims, and their hearts and 
mouths full of bitterness and liatred of those who u])held the Constitution and the 
laws in this terrible strife, arrogantly to demand immediate restoration of the 
powers and privileges so impiously trampled under foot, that tliey may resume 
their former unhappily paramount influence and power in the councils of the nation 
whose life they have thus sought to destroy ; nor to resent as an insult the requi- 
sition of those whom tliey have thus cruelly and grievously wronged, that some 
security be given against the repetition of their crime. 

Suppose, tliat, in tlie war of the revolution, England had been successful and con- 
quered the revolting colonies, and re-assumed her territorial powers and jurisdic- 
tion over tliem. What question could there be of her power to impose such terms 
as she should think proper, for restoration to them of their previous colonial rights 
under their charters, notwithstanding that, upon the laying down of their arms, 
they were individually restored to the rights of citizenship until conviction of trea- 
son by process of law ? 

These views are practical and excellent, and would come in 
well at the close of a legal argument. But are they fully ade- 
quate to supply public wants here ? The subject under consid- 
eration is how this Sovereign People, Nation, Government, or 
Congress — for it is not very certain which of these parties is 
actually possessed of the Sovereignty — has obtained the rights 
of conquest by subduing its own subjects. Is that extract from 
Vattel and reference to Wheaton, abundant to decide that im- 
portant question ? Our Author soon says, too — for [33]*^^ comes 
after — that " The nature of the political relations of the several 
States to the United States is obviously pure matter of law;" 
and in the paragraph ensuing, (but my [49]-'\) the remark is made, 
that " All other questions being obviously matters of legal right, 
— of law purely," etc. Why, then, not give us the law ? But 
instead of that, other practical considerations follow [49]^*, 
[50]9* and [51]95, succeeded by these : — 

[Zb-''^] Another ground upon which these political rights may be accounted as 
forfeited or lost is, that, as above shown, they were granted upon condition of the 
continued existence of certain prescribed relations to the United States and obedi- 
ence to the Constitution and the laws ; and, that condition having been voluntarily 



§ 24.] Would subduing a Behellion give Bights of Conquest? 71 

and entirely broken, they were by tlie terms of tlie grant, and the principle uni- 
versally recognized in continuing grants upon conditions, totally and irrevocably 
forfeited and lost. And, being so forfeited or lost, every principle and analogy of 
civil law and of common sense dictates that restoration of it must depend upon the 
assent of the other party ; namely, the people who granted it, and who, for all pur- 
poses of upholding the Constitution and protecting the life and welfare of the nation 
under it, are represented by the General Government, which is invested with ple- 
7iary and Jinal power to determine all questions arising under it. 

Does that italicizing positively end the matter and " determine 
all questions," or may it be possible that the People — of the 
Nation, would Mr. L. say; of the States, 1 would say — might 
yet have a voice in important questions, as well as the Gov- 
ernment? But I must not interrupt Mr. Loring : — 

[36'5| All analogy sustains this view of the subject. In all cases of contract, 
founded upon conditions, breach of the conditions is finally fatal to all rights under 
it, and their restoration could only be obtained by remission of the forfeiture by 
the other party. So, in cases of treason once committed, no penitence, no prof- 
fered return to allegiance, no obedience however entire, can wash away the crime : 
pardon from the government whose authority was violated can alone restore the 
guilty party to immunity in his former civil rights of property, liberty, and life. 
And it would be strange indeed, if criminals thus under the ban of the law, as hav- 
ing forfeited all their personal rights, including that of life itself, may still retain, in 
their political corporate capacity as a State, their privileges and power of participa- 
tion in the administration of the government which they sought and may be still 
seeking to destroy, — strange, indeed, that the government should be invested with 
full power to protect itself against danger from their treason as individuals by the 
extremest punishment, but have none whatever to protect itself against the inti 
nitely greater danger resulting from treason in their political corporate capacities as 
component parts of itself; none to expel the most dangerous internal enemy, but 
must continue to maintain and nourish the viper gnawing at its lieart. 

It is no answer to pretend that the law against treason subjecting every individ- 
ual guilty to loss of life is a sufficient protection, as it may be administered to the 
extent necessary for preventing repetition of the crime ; for, however sufficient 
that defence might be in ordinary cases of insurrection or conspiracy by compara- 
tively few individuals acting in their individual capacities, it is utterly and obvi- 
ously incompetent and futile in the case of a rebellion by the people, or a large 
majority of the people, of a State, acting in its corporate capacity. Such punish- 
ment at the utmost could be extended to a few only of those of most prominent in- 
fluence, position, or criminality. It could never reach the mass of voters, who 
would be still left to the uninterrupted and practically unassailable enjoyment of 
their most important political rights, — and those not only the most dangerous, 
but, it may be, the only ones by the exercise of which they could peril the safety 
of the Government and the peace of the nation. Upon such a theory, the Govern- 
ment would be utterly powerless to protect itself from the hostility of traitors red- 
handed from the battles of rebellion, seeking to accomplish by political machina- 
tions the destruction they failed to accomplish on the field. It would seem that no 
merely technical construction of the Constitution, rendering the Government so 
feeble and incapable oi self-protection, and for accomplishing the great ends of 
national unity, peace, and prosperity for which it was created, can be accepted ; 
but that the common sense and the instinct of self- preservation alike cry out 
against it. 

Again, if the theory referred to be sound ; if the inhabitants of a State may thus 



72 Reply to ilir. Lorhig upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

rise in rebellion, and, after waging a bloody and costly war against the Govern- 
ment, may, by the mere laying-down of their arms and seemingly sincere profes- 
sions of obedience, assert the absolute right of restoration to political station and 
power in the national administration, — it follows that the nation has no protection 
from revolt and national embarrassment or ruin beyond the mere pleasure of the 
inhabitants of any State, or number of States, to keep the peace ; for if they may 
rebel, and, being conquered, maj' resume all their former rights, — or (to speak 
more properly according to the theory) if they have never lost any by rebellion, — 
it follows that they may resort to this process, or the threat of it (which in many 
cases would be hardl3- less disastrous than the reality in a national point of view), 
whenever they migiit think it expedient to do so, for the purpose of obtaining some 
desired political end or ascendency, or of compelling the adoption of some especial 
local or national policy, with the certainty, that, while enjoying the chance of suc- 
cess, they could lose nothing if defeated, and with the possibility that even defeat 
might i)rove a gain, as in the present instance, where, upon their theory, they would 
be entitled to re-assume their former political rights, but with a vast increase of rela- 
tive power in the Government. And such rebellion might be endlessly repeated 
with the like impunity, with the chances of gaining the desired end if successful, 
and the certainty of sustaining no loss of political power if defeated. The national 
Government, if of such a nature, would be little worth the blood and treasure it 
originally costs for its establishment, or a tithe of those recenth' expended in its 
preservation : it would be neither worth dying for nor living under. 

Such practical considerations are very well, for we want to 
know the dilFiculties that we may counteract and remedy them. 
No Government is perfect; and that will be found best in which 
the inconveniences are most easily remedied. But of what avail 
are these practical suggestions, with no law to apply to them ? 
" Obvious///^' — very "obviously" — are they only to be rem- 
edied by the " pure matter of law." In themselves, too, each 
and every one, it "is also a pure question of law, and one 
which of necessity must be decided." Yet how can it be done 
without the law ? Perhaps Mr. Loring can help us, for from 
that climax he goes on to observe : — 

[37''-] But there is another and broader view to be taken of this subject, in the 
light of the great principles upon which the Constitution was founded, and the 
great purposes for which it was created, extending far beyond any merely literal or 
technical rules of construction as applied to written contracts or instruments in the 
ordinary business of life. 

And what is " the broader view," in the light of great prin- 
ciples? They are set forth in that inexplicable paragraph [4] *^ ; 
which it is not strange to see succeeded with a "but" in this 
way: — 

[38''"'j But a contract creating a nation, and designed to secure and perpetuate 
the internal and external peace and welfare, and to preserve the life of a nation, 
calls for very different rules of construction. The foundation principles of self- 
preservation and of essential security for the great objects of the compact, must 
have controlling influence over all other principles, if in conflict with them, when 
applied to any issue in which they are involved. 



§ 24.] Would suhduing a RehelUon give Riglds of Conquest 



This principle of self-preservation is fully recognized as one- of established law in 
all civilized communities. A man, to save his own life, may destroy the life of 
another, although innocent of any wrong to him ; as in the familiar illustration of 
two men upon a plank at sea sufBcient for the safety of one, but not for both. 
Either xn^iy justifiaMj' repel the other from it, if the instinct or dut}' of self-presei- 
vation be not overruled by higher motives. And it applies with infinitely more 
force, and with no possible qualification, where a national government is called 
upon to vindicate its e.xistence, the destruction of whicli must involve incalculable 
losses of life and of every thing that makes life worth having. 

A few paragraphs more complete the paper. So that instead 
of the definite means that law would supply, and which the 
premises seemed to promise, we have to apply to common sense 
and general principles. 

This question, too, of a Sovereignty acquiring new rights over 
its subjects by conquest, not being treated of in our Constitu- 
tions, State or Federal, we have to follow Mr. Loring's example, 
and discuss it upon general principles. And general ^ enough 

1 More judiciously even than in the first article, does our Author in the second exliibit the 
entire generality of principles applicable, and the wide latitude the subject affords to skill 
and ingenuity; and the less trammelled by rules of logic or any other rules, the more 
satisfactory the result. "The Government, whose life is the life of the Nation," must, shall 
have '' the power of self-preservation." That is ihe principle underlying our sj'stem, and 
" any other principle obviously depriving the Government " of that power, is a heresy and 
shall not be a principle. Break off " any such fetters about its limbs as render it iucapable 
of se//-def'ence, or of saving the nation for whose preservation it was created." So that 
under an appropriate head (in the pamphlet) — " Kight of Government as Conqueror to 
dictate Terms of Peace " — Mr. Loring observes: — 

[£; 91] "In discussing tile right of the Government to dictate terms and conditions of peace as the vic- 
tors in the strugs'^, we must put aside, as wholly irrelevant, all questions concerning the right of the 
Government of the United States to hold the inhabitants of territories, acquired by conquest in a for- 
eign war, permanently under military control, or under territorial or colonial administration only ; or 
of its obligation to admit them into the Union as States when fitted for such admission. Also, any 
question of its right or power, as the conqueror, to hold the inhabitants of the rebel States in perma- 
nent military or other control as territories or colonies ; or to impose upon them any terms or condi- 
tions of restoration to their former political rights and powers, which it may see fit to impose in the 
exercise of its arbitrary will only, without due regard to such ultimate restoration. And with them 
may go the non.sensical clamor about military usurpation, military despotism, despotic will, and irre- 
sponsible power, heaped upon Congress for maintaining its right, as the victor, to impose couditions of 
peace. 

" It is conceded, that the nature of the Government of the United States, as created by the Constitu- 
tion, does limit its powers, as conquerors of the rebel States, to the offectu.al subjugation of their inhab- 
itants to its authority, for the purpose of the restoration of them to their former rights and privileges 
as States in the Union ; and would not allow it to hold them in permanent arbitrary subjection, as 
conquered territories merely, any longer than may be needful for the accomplishment of such restora- 
tion. But it is maintained that the Government, nevertheless, has full right and power, as the con- 
queror in the war, to prescribe the terms and conditions of peace upon which such restoration shall be 
granted, unlimited and unshackled by any provisions of the Con.stitution, or any other restraints than 
those of obedience to humanity, justice, sound national policy, and the preservation of the Union ; and 
that the Constitution does not expressly, nor by implication, interpose to shield the inhabitants of those 
States from the imposition of such terms and conditions, or to entitle them to re-assume their partici- 
pation of power in the national councils, free from all restraint upon its perversion for aceomplisliing 
hereafter the same purposes which they sought to gain in the field. Any other principle obviously 
deprives the Government, whose life is the life of the nation, of the power of self preservation , and 
makes the Constitution, which created it, the ready means for its destruction. 

" The truth is manifest, that the exigency of a civil war, by a combination of States against the Gen- 
eral Government, was not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution, and is nowhere contemplated 
in its provisions ; and consequently that the terms of it have nothing to do with the case in hand, 



74 Reply to 3ft\ Loring upon " Reconstruction.''' [T. 2. 

they seem to be upon this point; for the visionary theorists upon 
whom we have to depend, have made the subject so abstract, as 
to have abstracted from it all the concrete our Author discovers ; 
and it is left for practical writers like him and myself to supply 
the deficiency. 

From those ancient teachings, upon which the world will have 
mainly to rely until some new lights illuminate with the etful- 
gence of their knowledge, it will be ascertained that the rights of 
Sovereignty are perfect, absolute, imprescriptible. (That last is 
the exact adjective wanted.) Nothing can be added to them ; 
nothing taken from them, except by their destruction. If under 
a Monarchy, a Province revolts, and is subjugated, has the 
Monarch acquired any new rights over those his subjects ? 
Did they not already owe him their allegiance ? Do they when 
subdued in a revolt owe him more ? So in a Free State, if a 
County revolt against a State, subduing the rebels gives no new 
rights, changes in no respect the relations of the County as such, 
or of the individual Citizens. Those engaged in the conspiracy, 
before as afterwards, as subjects of their Sovereign State, owed 
obedience to the Constitution and laws which the Sovereignty 
had ordained for their Government; and for the violation of the 
laws and Constitution will they be tried, without any new right 
or power being acquired over them. None could be acquired : 
they are already perfect. Grotius, the most eminent authority 
upon the Rights of War, would seem even to cut off all possi- 
bility of acquiring rights of conquest, in any civil war. In Book 
3, c. 6, § 27, he observes : — 

But this external right of acquiring things taken in war, is by the Law of 
Nations so peculiar to a solemn war, that it has no force in other wars. For in 
other wars between foreigners, a thing is not acquired by virtue of the war [note 
that], but in satisfaction of some debt, which otherwise could not be recovered. 
But in civil wars, whether they be great or small, there is no change of property 
but by the sentence of a judge. i 

further than this : that in estabiishing a frame of government upon the broadest principles of freedom 
and humanity, and for the especial purpose of establishing and perpetuating the Union, they impose 
upon that government corresponding obligations to treat rebellious subjects with all the mercy and 
magnanimity which the nature of their crime and tlie safety of the republic will allow ; and the further 
sacred duty of preserving the Union unimpaired, by restoring the rebel States to their former places in 
it, as soon as such restoration can be safely accomplished ; but leaving the time and mode of discharging 
these duties to the exercise of its judgment and discretion, to be faithfully exercised for the good of the 
whole nation. The common sense of the people of the United States, of mankind, and of liistory will 
repudiate as absurd any hypothesis that the Constitution imposes any other limits to the authority of 
the national Government in such an exigency, or binds any such fetters about its limbs as render it 
incapable of self-defence, or of saving the nation for whose preservation it was created."' 

1 Candor, however, requires the admission that Grotius was probably mistaken, for Mr. 
Loring, in continuation from [K] "3, remarks : — 

[L 31] " As the Constitution, in investing the Government with the power to enter upon foreign war, 



§ 24.] Would subduing a RehelUon (jive RlgJds of Conquest ? 15 

While this would put a period to Mr. Loring's hypothesis, 
unless he can bring higher authorities on his side, it seems not 
applicable to mine ; as it can be shown that this restriction ap- 
plies to an ordinary Nation under one Sovereignty, and not to a 
Federal Republic. The civilized world has been so long under 
Monarchial rule, that the application of principles to Free 
States, and especially in a Federal Republic, is quite imperfect, 
Yet when applied, will they be found all-sufficient ; and in such 
a civil war as ours, will give as perfect rights of conquest, as in 
a just and solemn war between foreign States. 

Doubtless, too, a rebellion is to be put down, and putting it 
down will be to conquer the rebels; which insurrection may 
also attain to the dignity of civil war. But in an ordinary 
State or Nation, with a single Sovereignty, will success in that 
legitimate act generate any new right? The fact is one thing; 
the consequences of that fact another, dependent upon the 
relations of the parties to each other, and the law thereto 
applicable. 

Divine Wisdom — for certainly it was not our own — led 
Congress immediately upon its assembling in the beginning of 
the war, to adopt the noble sentiments proclaimed in the Crit- 
tenden-Johnson resolution,^ with only seven disseiitients, two in 

mipliedly clothed it with all the rights incident to conquest, iucludiug that of dictating the terms of 
peace, and unlimited by any other restraints than those imposed by the nature of the Government and 
the objects of the war ; so, in investing it with the power to subdue rebellious subjects in a civil war, it 
gives the like right to impose the terms and conditions of peace, or, which is the same thing, of restora- 
tion to tlieir former rights and privileges, unlimited by any other than the like restraints. The reason 
is the same in both cases. This right of the conqueror is not founded upon any arbitrarj' rule, nor is 
it any merely gratuitous prerogative granted to the strongest as the fruit of victory, but rests upon the 
absolute and unavoidable necessity of the case, there being no common arbiter or judge who can decide 
between the parties upon the reasonableness or justice of the terms upon which peace should be made ; 
and which necessity is as absolute in a civil war as in a foreign war."' 

We shall have to wait for Mr. Loring and the new authorities to more perfectly uufokl 
their system based upon this new sort of National Sovereignty, that teaches how despotism 
C(ui get new rights over subjects, before we shall be able to choose with due discrimination 
between the Grotian and Loring sj'stems. But will not a genuine State-rights Democrat 
like Jlr. Loring, tind himself strangely associated as an advocate of unlimited power, such 
as he endeavors to establish in the Federal Government, and especially in Congress? 

1 ^'■Eesolved, by the House of Bepresenlalices of the Congress of the United Stores, [con- 
curred in by the Senate which altered " waged''' to "/)?-osecM<erf,"] That the present deploi- 
able civil war has been forced upon the country, by the disunionists of the southern States, 
now in arms against the Constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital ; that 
in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, 
will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part 
in anv spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of 
overthrowing or interfering with the rights and institutions of those States, but to maintain 
and defend the Supremacy of the Constitution, [not the Sovereignty of the United States,] 
and to preserve the Union with all the dignity and equality and rights of the several 
States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to 
cease." 



76 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''' [T. 2. 

the House, and five in the Senate. Have we made such fools 
of ourselves, as to wage a war against rebels, and yet had no 
purpose of subjugation ? Surely a National Sovereignty that 
leads its chief officials to declare that nonsense, is not of much 
account ; and if that be a natural concomitant of our Sover- 
eignty, our system may well be revolutionized.^ 

I say it was not by human wisdom that the purposes and 
objects which ought to characterize so just and holy a war as 
that of ours, on the part of the North, were thus early declared ; 
and it will be to the imperishable glory of our country to have 
made that declaration. But it was not of human wisdom. 
Right contrary to that declaration, the whole newspaper press. 
Democratic and Republican, all our orators and statesmen, 
from Mr. Everett down, had before, and then, and all the time, 
proclaimed it a war to subdue rebels ; and the falsehood was 
made the main plank in the Republican platform,^ upon which 
Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson, one of the framers of that sound 

1 Mr. Loriny seems to perceive the difficulty, and as a true State-rights Democrat, re- 
solved to have genuine and perfect rights of conquest worthy of the occasion, he presents 
these views, though only in part, in article No. 2; the last two paragraphs, better con- 
sidered, being added in the paniplilet : — 

[illiw] " But now that victory has perched upon the standard of the United States, and absolute 
power is in her grasp to vindicate the majesty of her outraged laws, to demand indemnity for tlie enor- 
mous treasure expended in maintaining her authority (none being possible for the infinitely greater loss 
of the lives of her children), and to require security for her peace and safety against future like revolt, 
or political machinations to accomplish the same ends, — all demanded by the simplest justice, and 
free from all tiiint of oppression, — we are coolly told that the Constitution prohibits the exercise of any 
such powers ; that these reasonable demands are wholly unconstitutional : that all which the Ciovern- 
ment can lawfully do is instantly to re-instate these still vinsubdued though conquered enemies in all 
their former political rights and privileges, and admit them into immediate participation in the admin- 
istration of its authority. 

" Upon this doctrine, the conclusion is obvious, that, in such a conflict, the traitors are at all times 
masters of the situation, and that, if defeated, the conquered, and not the conquerors, dictate the 
terms of peace. 

" Another logical result from this theory is, that if, by any combination of circumstances, the inhab- 
itants of States desirous to secede should obtain command of a majority in both houses of Congress, 
either by the numbers of their own Senators and Representatives, or by combination with corrupt 
members misrepresenting the loyal States, or otherwise ; aud upon an attempt to exercise their politi- 
cal power in destroying the Union, and dismembering the Government, should be resisted by the people 
of the loyal States by force of arms, and be effectually subdued in the field, as they now have been, — 
they would nevertheless have the perfect right, upon the laying-down of their arms, to resume their 
places in the national councils, there to resume their nefarious efforts, and again effect their purpose, 
or expose the nation to the horrors of civil war; and, if needful, might repeat the iniquitous game 
until the people of the loyal States, exhausted by successive contiicts, or'weary of the strife and hope- 
less of repose, should be finally compelled to submit." 

2 '■^ Resolved , That we approve the determination of the Government of the United States, 
not to compromise with rebels, or to ofler iwy terms of peace except such as may be based 
upon an iniconditional surrender of their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to 
the Constitution and laws of the United States ; and that we call upon the Government to 
maintain this position and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible vigor to the com- 
plete suppression of the rebellion, in full reliance upon the self-sacrifices, the patriotism, the 
heroic valor, and the undying devotion of the American people to their country and its free 
institutions." 



[ 



§ 24.] Would subduing a Rebellion give Rights of Conquest? 11 

declaration, were elected by an overwhelming vote. And fur- 
ther, the Democratic platform being generally supposed to be 
adverse to that main plank, as it was in truth, was the occasion 
of the transfer of thousands of votes from M'Clellan to Lincoln. 
This hallucination of the Sovereignty of the United States, 
that Mr. Loring so ably advocates, and the effects of which he 
so vividly and correctly portrays, is indeed the occasion of this 
extreme bewilderment, leading us even to believe that we have 
subdued the rebel Citizens and the rebel States, and yet have 
obtained all the rights of conquest that " the Laws of iN'ature 
and of Nature's God" have unquestionably brought us. 

To obtain this result, sciolists have to repudiate such trifling 
matters as the differences recognized in political science. With 
them a State is a State, a Nation is a Nation, and a war is a 
war, always having one and the same result.^ Overlooking 
what would seem to be material as to the acquisition of rights 
by war, as that rights already possessed could not be won by 
conquest ; or that a Nation without a Sovereignty of its own, as 
is a Federal Republic, whose rights are wholly dependent upon 
the terms of the league, might thereby be circumscribed ; they 
would not only bring all civil wars to one and the same result, but 
prove the rights of conquest in any civil war to be precisely the 
same as those in any foreign war. As we shall presently see, the 
facts compelled Mr. Loring to recognize limitations on the part 
of the Federal Government in its recent conquest, though he 
subsequently endeavors to set aside the admission ; and Vattel 
is quoted to sustain his hypothesis : — 

1 Following [/] 6Tj Mr. Loring argues: — 

fiV35] " And the reason of the case is manifestly against any. Tlie fundamental principles of the 
riirht of the victor to prescribe the terms of peace in a foreign war, apply , not only with equal, but with 
greater force, in a civil war. That of the necessity of the case, namely, because there can be no common 
arbiter or judge between them, is of equal validity in both cases. And, In reference to qualifications 
of the arbiter, ^Vho but the victorious Government can decide upon the nature or degree of the crime 
involved in the treason, the punishment justly due, the amount of injuries for which indemnity may 
justly be demanded, the security necessary to guard against future like revolt, or for the protection of 
the lives, liberties, rights, and property of the loyal citizens of the Union iu the territories of the rebel 
States, and the other questions necessarily involved in any adjustment of the terms of peace ? 

" It is absurd to pretend, that, upon the surrender of the rebel forces and the cessation of opposition 
to the authority of the Constitution and the laws, the Constitution becomes the arbiter; for the whole 
question is of the right of the rebels to be restored to any privileges under it, or of the terms upon 
which such restoration shall be made ; and, until that shall have been completed, their constitutional 
rights are the subject in dispute, not the arbiter by which it can be decided." 

Precisely so : and where do we find the rule that is to be applied to " the subject in dispute," 
construing the Constitution? According to tiiat rule, is there no other party but " the vic- 
torious government to decide upon" the question.s in dispute? To that rule, to wliich 
manifest reference is above made, must we appeal to decide this point also, — who arc the 
real parties to the controversy ? 



78 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' f T. -f. 

[39^"] Vattel thus lays down the law of nations on this subject : "A civil war 
breaks the bands of societ}' and govei-nment, or at least suspends their force and 
effect ; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other 
as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge. Tiiese two parties, therefore, must 
necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, 
two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, theij 
stOnd in preciseli/ tlie same predicament as two nalionx ivlto engage in a contest, and have 
recourse to arms." 

Wheaton lays down the law to the same effect. (Dana's ed., § 296.) 
And it has been expressly recognized and enforced by the Supreme Court of the 
United Sfates in tlie Prize Cases, (2 Black's U. S. Rep., p. 638,) in reference to the 
late rebellion. 

But here Vattel, whose object is chiefly to bring States to 
practice " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," rather 
than to teach their science, is endeavoring to show how in an 
ordinary State or Nation, under one Sovereignty, a rebellion 
may become actual civil war. This is the preceding context. 
Book 3, chapter 18, concluding the subject of war, is " of a 
Civil War," thus beginning : — 

§ 287. It is a question very much debated, whether a sovereign is bound to ob- 
serve the common laws of war towards rebellious subjects who have openly taken 
up .arms against him. A flatterer, or a prince of a cruel and arbitrary disposition, 
will immediately pronounce that the laws of war were not made for rebels, for 
whom no punislunent can be too severe. Let us proceed more soberly, and reason 
from the incontestable principles above laid down. In order clearly to discover 
what conduct the sovereign ought to pursue towards revolted subjects, we must, 
in the first place, recollect that all the sovereign's rights are derived from those of 
the state or of civil society, from that trust reposed in him, from the obligation he 
lies under of watching over the welfare of the nation, of procuring her greatest 
happiness, of maintaining order, justice, and peace within her boundaries. Sec- 
ondly, we must distinguish the nature and degree of the difierent disorders [vary- 
ing of covnse according to the nature of the subject] which may disturb the State, 
and oblige the sovereign to take up arms, or substitute forcible measures instead of 
the milder influence of authority. 

§ 288. The name of rebels is given to all subjects who unjustly take up arms 
against the ruler of the society, whether their view be to deprive him of the 
supreme authority, or to resist his commands in some particular instance, and to 
impose conditions on him. 

§ 289. A popular commotion is a concourse of people who assemble in a tumult- 
uous manner, and refuse to listen to the voice of their superiors If the rage 

of the malcontents be particularly levelled at the magistrates, or others vested 
Mith the public authority, and they proceed to a formal disobedience or acts of open 
violence, this is called a sedition. When the evil spreads, — when it infects a ma- 
jority of the inliabitants of a city or province, and gains such strength that even the 
sovereign himself is no longer obeyed, — it is usual more particularly to distinguish 
sucii a disorder by the name of insurrection. 

§ 292. When a party is formed in a State who no longer obey the Sovereign, 
and are possessed of sufficient strength to oppose him, — or when, in a Republic, 
[and much more in a Federal Republic,] the Nation is divided into two opposite fac- 
tions, and botli sides take up arms, — this is called a civil war. Some writers con- 
fine this term to a just insurrection of the subjects against their Sovereign, to dis- 



§ 24.] Would siibduing a Rehellion give Rights of Conqnvd ? 79 

tinguish that lawful resistance from rebellion, which is an open and unjust resist- 
ance. But what appellation will they give to a war which arises in a Republic 
torn by two factions, [or in a Federal Republic with eleven States against twenty- 
four,] — or in a Monarchy between two competitors for the crown ? (Custom 
appropriates the term of " civil ivar " to every war between the members of one 
and the same political society, [as were these thirty-five States, constituting the 
Nation of the United States]. If it be between part of the Citizens on the one 
side, and the Sovereign with those who continue in obedience to him on the other, 
— provided the malcontents have any reason for taking up arms, nothing furtlier is 
required to entitle such disturbance to the name of civil war, and not tliat of rebel- 
lion. [How much more, then, is it civil war and not rebellion, when tlie contest is 
upon the part of eleven Sovereign States against twenty-four.] This latter term 
is applied only to such an insurrection against lawful authority as is void of all 
appearance of justice. The sovei'eign indeed never fails to bestow the appellation 
of rebels on all such of his subjects as openly resist him ; but when tlie latter have 
acquired sufficient strength to give him effectual opposition, and to oblige him to 
carry on the war against them according to the established rules, he must neces- 
sarily submit to the use of the term " civil war." 

§ 293. It is foreign to our purpose in this place to weigh the reasons which may 
authorize and justify a civil war ; we have elsewhere treated of tlie cases wherein 
subjects may resist the sovereign. Setting, therefore, the justice of the cause 
wholly out of the question, it only remains for us to consider the maxims which 
ought to be observed in a civil war, and to examine whether the sovereign in par- 
ticular is, on such an occasion, bound to conform to the established laws of war. 

Mr. Loring's extract concludes the section. 

Though Vattel was a native of the Federal Republic of 
Switzerland, that kind of government being so inconsiderable 
in the world, he deemed it unnecessary, in applying principles 
to the practice of States, to go into the nice distinctions that 
the different natures of government would occasion. Indeed, 
he was too much imbued with the errors of his time, pervading 
nearly all the champions of moderate government, as is apj^ar- 
ent in § 287, though more explicitly declared, Book I., §§ 2, 3, 
to have deemed it necessary to bring out the differences. He 
makes the King in fact a Magistrate, holding the Sovereignty 
not in his own right, but as the trustee of the People. This is 
no place to discuss the question, but if there be not the funda- 
mental difference which the other chief authorities make, and 
which Vattel also recognizes, as to the possession of the Eight 
of Command by the one, ihe few, or the many, the whole science 
of- politics is a baseless fabric. But here he endeavors to find 
checks upon a Sovereign, and bring the laws of war to bear in a 
civil contest. A Republic is introduced by way of illustration, 
simply to prove the absurdity of styling every civil war a rebel- 
lion ; and he exhibits the propriety of moderation in exercising 
rights of conquest, even under a Monarchy. 



<S0 Reply to Mr. Luring upon " Jleconstr action.'' [T. 2. 

Mr. LorJiig cites Vattel to prove the results of war, ass we 
learn from the following extract preceding the last : — 

[40*''] Now, one of the best-established principles of that code [tlie Law of Na- 
tions] is, that, as there is no acknowledged arbiter or judge between the parties 
engaged in Avar, the victor has of necessity tlie right to dictate the terms of peace, 
provided that they be not inconsistent with humanity and tiie generally recognized 
principles of that code. And this rule, under certain limitations, is as applicable 
to a civil war as to one between sovereign States of no antecedent connections 
with each other. 

To the results or effects of civil war, the paragraph quoted 
has no direct relation, as proved by the context before given. 
And it ought to be admitted in Mr. Loring's behalf, that he 
might have found it somewhat difficult to offer an extract any 
more suitable to his hypothesis ; for not a single authority elu- 
cidates the rights that a Sovereign would acquire by conquering 
his own subjects. In the total silence upon this point as it re- 
gards Monarchy, one could hardly expect that as to a Republic 
it would have been discussed, considering the slight estimation 
which the world has had for Democracy for eighteen centuries. 
And Mr. Loring being a strenuous Democrat, and a State- 
rights Democrat, and at the same time a stout maintainer of 
our rights of conquest; this point of improvement in the Law 
of Nations, and one rather essential to his argument, may well 
be entrusted to his care. As to Vattel, the only passage in the 
chapter or in the work at all apposite is this : — 

§ 295. When subjects take up arms without ceasing to acknowledge the sov- 
ereign, and only for tlie purpose of obtaining a redress of tlieir grievances, there 
are two reasons tor observing the common laws of war towards them : — First, an 
apprehension lest tlie civil war should become more cruel and destructive by the 
insurgents making retaliation, which, as we have already observed, they will not 
fail to do, in return for the severities exercised by the sovereign. 2. The danger 
of committing great injustice by hastily punishing those who are accounted rebels. 
The flames of discord and of civil war are not favorable to the proceedings of pure 
and sacred justice ; more quiet times are to be waited for. It will be wise in the 
prince to keep his prisoners till, having restored tranquillity, he is able to bring 
them to a legal trial. 

As to the other effects which the law of nations attributes to public war, (see 
chap. XII. of this book,) and particularly the acquisition of things taken in war, — 
subjects who take up arms against their sovereign without ceasing to acknowledge 
him, cannot lay claim to the benefit of those effects. The booty alone, the mov- 
able property carried off by the enemy, is considered as lost to the owners ; but 
this is only on account of the dilHculty of recognizing it, and the numberless in- 
conveniences which would arise from the attempt to recover it. All this is usu- 
ally settled in the edict of pacification or the act of amnesty. [Does not tliis ac- 
cord with the extract from Grotius, p. 74? And though in this informal way, and 
for the reasons given, certain trifling acquisitions are referred to ; how happens it 



§ 24.] Would subduing a Rebellion give Rights of Conquest ? 81 

that tliose general riglits of conquest, — acquired, too, over those pests of civil 
society, accursed rebels — have no mention ?] 

But when a nation hecomes divided into two parties absolutely independent, and 
no longer acknowledging a common superior, [when could that be more ellectually 
done than in our case, when the contest begins between two Confederate Govern- 
ments '{\ the State is dissolved, and the war between the two parties stands on tho 
same ground, in every respect, as a public war between two different nations. 
Whetiier a Republic [much more a Federal Republic] be split into two fictions, each 
maintaining that it alone constitutes the body of the State, — or a kingdom be di- 
vided between two competitors for the crown, — the nation is severed into two par- 
ties who will mutually term each other rebels. Thus there exist in the State two 
separate bodies, who pretend to absolute independence, and between whom there is 
no judge (§293). They decide their quarrel by arms, as two different nations would 
do. The obligation to observe the common laws of war towards each other is there- 
fore absolute, — indispensably binding on both parties, and the same which the 
law of Nature imposes on all nations in transactions between State and State. 

Are not those views, especially when connected with that 
chapter 12, and also 13, which the Reader should examine, directly 
contrary to Mr. Loring's hypothesis, as to the possibility of acquir- 
ing rights of conquest by the Nation of the United States, were 
it sovereign? Is it not necessary to adopt my hypothesis of 
State Sovereignty, in order to acquire those rights of conquest ? 
Not only to secure justice and national unity in the present 
imbroglio must we have to "the movable goods" full rights as 
any other Sovereignty would have by conquest, but much more 
to the land, and especially over the Peoples, who by Secession 
and war would have despoiled us of all our State rights in that 
part of our National Union. 

Incidentally, Vattel presents a truth of prime import to us, 
that by the secession, the Nation being " divided into two 
parties absolutely independent," though we never did " ac- 
knowledge a common superior, the State is dissolved." That 
State or Nation of the United States, thus destroyed de facto^ 
not de jure, is what we have to reconstruct ; and only because it 
could be and was in fact thus broken up by Secession, and still 
more effectually by war, have we acquired our rights of con- 
quest. But Vattel's concluding sentence shows he was not giv- 
ing consideration to the effects, but to the conduct of a civil war. 
And that accords with the general scope of this " elegant " work, 
which has little to do with the science of politics, with which he 
supposes the reader to be acquainted, but with the application of 
principles to practice. It is truly accordant with its title, Tlie Law 
of Nations ; that is, " the Law of Nature and of Nature's God " 
applied to the conduct of Nations ; and of Nations as they 
ought to be entitled, rather than of States, of which most Nations 



82 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

are constituted ; and most States or Nations being under mo- 
narchial rule, it is to Monarchies most accordant. As between 
us and foreign Nations, it is replete with wisdom ; but as to 
international rights in a Federal Republic, it gives little instruc- 
tion. 

Mr. Loring, however, imagining Vattel sustains his hypothesis 
of National Sovereignty, proceeds at length to argue that we 
have perfect rights of conquest, and all the more perfect because 
of the heinousness of this rebellion. He then compares our war 
to the revolt of the Colonies, and inquires : — 

[41''] Or if a large portion of the inhabitants of any one State, composing entire 
counties or districts entitled to representation in the legislature, should rise in re- 
bellion and expel the State government from these territories, carry on civil war, 
finally terminating in their subjection, what reasonable doubt could exist of the 
right to take possession of those territories, and hold them until peace and order 
sliould not only be presently restored, but also made reasonably permanent, by 
continuing the force necessary for that purpose so long as such necessity should 
continue, or until guaranties should be given such as to render it needless ; the in- 
dividual citizens meanwhile being left in the ordinary enjoyment of all their civil 
rights excepting those only of representation in the State government ? How can 
the war be said to be finally terminated until absolute security is obtained 1 

The concluding query probably refers to the one preceding ; 
and it might be imagined, that the war actually ends when the 
rights of conquest begin. A people can hardly be said to be 
conquered who keep up the fight ; but when they submit, is 
not the war over, and are not the rights of conquest instituted ? ^ 
But in his hypothetical case, who are rebels, the majority — for 
that is most likely — who overthrew the Government, or the 
minority who stood by it? And if, as I suppose, we consti- 

1 Mr. Loring judges differently in article No. 2; and preceding [G]*'^ remarks : — 

[ O 38] " Now, in regard to these positions, it may be said in the first place, as above stated, that the 
war cannot be said to be ended, and the authority ot the Constitution and the laws to be restored and 
established, so long as military power is necessary to maintain it, as is now the case in large portions of 
the Southern States ; nor while such restoration is merely formal, temporary, or insecure ; nor until 
it shall be made complete by suitable safeguards prescribed as the terms of peace : and iu the second 
place, as before shown, that no one pretends that the nature of our Government would allowany reten- 
tion of the territories of the rebel States as conquered foreign territory, subject to despotic authority or 
military power only, if the inhabitants were willing to return to their allegiance, under such terms as 
justice and humanity, and the national safety, demand. All that is maintained is, that, until such 
return and restoration, the Government has full right, as the conqueror, to prescribe those terms, un- 
limited by any provisions contained in the Constitution ; and that the Constitution can have no appli- 
ca.tion to any (luestion concerning any rights of the rebels until the final restoration of its authority 
over them, upon such conditions as the Government shall have imposed, and they shall have accepted." 

Here it will be perceived the Government itself has the full power, is its own ultimate 
judge, over whom even the limits of the Constitution are powerless. So that here is one 
definite specimen of argument upon the basis that the Government itself is sovereign; and 
even the Constitution, which he has repeatedly recognized as that establishing the Govern- 
ment, '' can have no application to any question concerning any rights of the rebels until 
liie final restoration of its authoritv." 



§ 24.] Would subduing a Rebellion give Mights of Conquest ? 83 

tute not an ordinary Nation, but a Federal Republic, how much 
more absurd, in accordance with Vattel's idea, § 295, (p. 80,) 
to consider either party rebels ? 

Nor do we want to make rebels of the Citizens of the seceded 
States, because that would preclude the rights of conquest. As 
the case now stands, when correctly apprehended, we shall find 
that superadded to the rights of compact, whereby we held 
those States to National Union, we have now Providentially 
the rights of conquerors, which it is indispensable we thoroughly 
understand. Mr. Loring and the Radicals are quite right upon 
the main practical question of our having acquired the rights ; 
but are fundamentally wrong as to their theory of acquisition. 
We need to get our theories right in order to maintain right 
practice, especially upon such momentous concerns. 

This result of the war which we neither anticipated nor 
desired, as that resolution affirms, God in wisdom, and for 
our best good, has brought about. We see now that it was 
desirable to insure the destruction of slavery ; we shall see with 
equal clearness that it was even more important to demonstrate 
the strength of our National Union, and the consequences of 
endeavoring by secession and war to break it up. 

The truth that we could, that we have, and that we probably 
always will have a fight, — a genuine war, civil though it be, — 
resulting as now in perfect conquest and subjugation, is an im- 
portant lesson that has cost too much in treasure and in blood, 
not to require that we make the utmost possible use of it as a 
warning for the future.^ Yet Mr. Loring's Sovereignty in the 

1 Mr. Loring himself, in the more matured views of his second paper, sees the impro- 
priety of trusting our rights of conquest to " the assumption that the recent civil war is to 
be accounted merely an insurrection or rebellion: " — 

[P 119] " Another and fatal objection, as is belieyed, to this theory, is found in the consideration that 
it is based entirely upon the assumption that the recent civil war is to be accounted merely as an in- 
surrection or rebellion, which the executive head of the Government was competent to deal with in 
determining its nature and extent and its termination. Now, to confound a civil war of the gigantic 
proportions of that from which the United States is emerging, in which the people of eleven States in- 
habiting and holding in hostile array about one-half of the territory of the United States, organized 
themselves into a distinct and separate Government, claiming to be an independent sovereignty, and 
endeavored by a war of four years in duration, by land and by sea, to estabhsh themselves as an inde- 
pendent nationality, — and to which de facto government belligerent rights were accorded by foreign 
nations and the Government of the United States, and were recognized by all its courts of justice and 
in its foreign diplomacy, — to confound such a war with a mere insurrection for a redress of grievances, 
or other causes, against a government whose general authority was aclinowledged, and whose national- 
ity it was not its purpose to destroy, and which involved the necessity of nothing more than the exer- 
cise of ordinary executive authority to subdue, — seems, to say the least, strangely unreasonable, and to 
furnish no foundation for any sound conclusions. 

" The war was in fact, in every sense, a territorial war between two powerful governments, contend- 
ing, one for national life and the other for the establishment of an empire ; calling forth all the resources 
of the national Goverument which the most exigent foreign war could put in requisition ; involving it 
In all the external political relations with other nations which any war could create ; and shaking to 



84 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'" [TJ. 2. 

United States, requires him essentially to forego this benefit 
that is surely ours, if the Sovereignty be in these States. Let 
us then, in short, consider this important matter, that — 

§ 25. Mr. Loking weakens our Rights of Conquest. 
At considerable length our Author argues that although — 

[42"] There is no express provision in the Constitution relating to the rebellion 
of the inliabitants of a State in its corporate capacity against the authority of the 
United States, nor to any penal or other consequences resulting from such rebel- 
lion, excepting in so far as any citizen of the State may be punishable individually 
for voluntarily participating in it, as above suggested ; 

yet that the general provisions of the Constitution and " the 
public law, or Law of Nations," provide amply for the emer- 
gency; and he claims pretty strong rights of conquest, as we 
will see under the ensuing head. But this National Sovereignty 
looming up before him, somewhat beclouds his optics, and he 
sees the rights of conquest only darkly, observing, — 

[43'''] But the powers of the United States, as victors in such a contest, are by 
no means as unlimited as they might be in a war with another nation of acknowl- 
edged independence. They cannot be considered as extending to the absolute sub- 
jection and permanent control of the confederate States as conquered territories, nor 
to the injposition of any such unqualified terms, conditions, or exactions as the ex- 
ercise of more sovereign will and power miglit justify in such other war. 

This United States Sovereignty is of a peculiar kind, for its 
war powers " are by no means as unlimited as they might be ; " 
and besides, " more sovereign will and power might justify " 
more " absolute subjection " than now appears possible. The 
truth is, which Mr. Loring only incidentally adinits in this way, 
that the power which his head impels liiiri to call Sovereignty, is 
only an authority derived from some source or other — may it not 
be those State rights he has at heart? which he sees has a check 
upon its exercise ; and therefore he observes, in continuation : — 

their dcepe.'t foundations all the internal political relations of the people, and of the loyal and of tho 
rebel States to the Government and Hie Union. A war in which the executive head of the Government, 
in the mere exercise of e.\ecutive authority, would have been utterly powerless and helpless. A war not 
contemplated nor provided for by the Constitution, perilini? the life of the nation, and throwing it 
back, in Hsif-defence, upon the ori;;inal principles of ,eelf-preservation. 

" It was a war formally declared by the (.'oufederate Government with all the .lolemnities of a declara- 
tion by a foreign nation, and was tinally recognized by an act of Congress, in a statute held by the 
Supreme Court to be equivalent to a formal declaration of war by that of the United States ; and until 
which act, a res|)ectal)le minority of the judges of the Supreme Court held that the President was not 
justitlablc in the exercise of belligerent rights affecting foreign nations. It had therefore every possi- 
ble element of a foreign war, recognized by the political aud judiciary departments of the Government, 
all whose powers were invoked in its support " 

It is true tliat these views are applied only to the President ; but may they not also be 
applicable to that other branch of this one and the same Federal Government, Congress? 
If to the Executive it is something more than "rebellion," is it not to the Legislature alsoV 



§ 25 ] Mr. Loring weakens our Bights of Conquoft. 85 

[44*^'] The power to wage war upon a State in rebellion, for the preservation of 
the Union, is a constitutional power necessarily invested in tiie Government solely 
for that purpose, and limited by that necessity. It cannot, therefore, be exercised 
for any other end, nor beyond the means justly and reasonably required for its ac- 
complishment. It cannot justify the holding of the territories of the State as con- 
quered or as provinces under military rule, or tiie depriving them of the rights of 
civil government, or of their previous constitutional privileges, any further than 
may be necessary to enforce present obedience to the Constitution and the laws, 
and for security against danger of future like disobedience or revolt. But so far as 
the attainment of these ends may render the occupation and government of the 
State by military rule, or the withholding of any civil rights and privileges, essen- 
tial, so far tlie right of such occupation, government, and authority is as obviously 
and indisputably justifiable as was the right of waging the war to obtain those ends. 
And, as above stated, the Government, as the victor, must, by the necessity of the 
case, be the sole judge of such necessity and of the proper security to be demanded ; 
being governed in the exercise of its discretion by the limits of constitutional au- 
thority, as above stated. 

Those limitations, too, are judicious, and gratefully acknowl- 
edged. And fortunately for my side of the argument, they 
spring not from the restraints of International Law, which regti- 
late all political rights ; but it appears that there " is a Cjtistitu- 
t'ional power, necessarily invested in the Government solely for 
Hint purpose and limited by that necessity. ^^ That is precisely the 
idea contended for on my side ; and what we are after is to 
ascertain by whose authority that " Constitutional power " is 
delegated and thus limited. 

These and other extracts indicate some essential peculiarity in 
the constitution of our system, affecting the rights of this Cen- 
tral Government. We differ, however, as to what that peculiar- 
ity is, Mr. L. imagining it is owing to the limit somehow or 
other put upon the Sovereignty of the United States as to in- 
ternal affairs ; whereas in my view it arises from the fact that 
neither the United States nor the Government, possesses in its 
own right any of the powers exercised, they being merely dele- 
gated to that Agency by the sovereign People of each State.^ 

1 A strong conflict pervades the entire argument. Mr. Loring's practical statesmanship 
brings out vividlj- the limits to the Government. Yet he fears lest his National Sovereignty 
should be thereby impaired, and in order to save his theory, he endeavors to remove the 
limits which he discovers, and would not willingly dispense with. The contliet is apparent 
in [ K]~^. and also in this: — 

[ Q 82] " Now, admitting the theory to be true that the right of the Government to subdue the re- 
bellion was a strictly constitutional right, and to be exercised .solely for the purpose of restoring and 
re-establishing the authority of the Constitution and the laws in the rebel States, and of bringing them 
into the fold of the Union, — it is not perceived where any limits are prescribed by the Constitution, or 
by what course of reasoning any c^m be inferred from it, wliich prohibit the Government, after the 
rightful subjugation of its rebellious subjects by force of arms, from requiring of them indemnity for 
the injuries they have inflicted upon the nation, so far as such indemnity is possible ; or from prescrib- 
ing such conditions of restoration to their former political powers and privileges as may be necessary 
to prevent the future perversion of them to the Uke criminal purposes ; and such security for the per- 



86 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

Yet Mr. Loring's limitation is neither unnatural nor illegiti- 
mate ; for, as in the grants of Magna Charta, Petition of 
Right, Habeas Corpus Act, etc., — which had come to be the 
birthright of our fathers, and the preludes to greater liberties in 
the sons, — the royal prerogative might be and is limited with- 
out infraction of the Sovereignty, producing what is technically 
styled Limited Monarchy. Our form, however, not being a 
Monarchy, but the antipodal one of Democracy, we must look 
for a diverse method of limitation. 

So, too, as learned from Vattel (p. 58), States joining in a 
Federal Republic, can put a restraint upon the exercise of their 
Sovereignty, without its infraction. But in such cases, and espe- 
cially in this land of written law, the written evidence must be 
produced ; and our records, unfortunately for Mr. L., show no 

sonal safety, freedom, and immunities of all citizens of the United States within their borders as justice, 
humanity, and the plighted faith of the Government, make necessary. 

" If the Govei-nmeut has the constitutional right to subdue its rebellious subjects by war for the pur- 
pose of restoring the authority of the Constitution and the laws over them, it follows in the plainest 
logical necessity that it must have also the constitutional right to make that restoration complete and 
permanent ; for otherwise it can in no just sense be accounted a full restoration. And as the Constitu- 
tion neither does nor could prescribe limits to the exercise of the military power necessary for the pur- 
po.ses of such subjugation and restoration, so neither does it, nor could it, prescribe limits to the power 
by which they shall be rendered permanently secure. Both must be left to the good faith and sound 
discretion of the Government, applied to the exigencies as they arise. And it is conceded on all hands 
that it alone must be the judge to decide when such restoration .shall be accounted as accomplished." 

Has the National Government no limits other than those expre.ssed in the Constitution? 
So full and complete are the limits which must and will be applied, that I affirm positively, 
that nolhing — not the slifjhte.st act — has been or is to be " left to tlie good faith and sound 
discretion of the Government." What the Sovereign States have authorized their Agency 
to do, it may do under the limits of International Law ; that rule Mr. Loring recognizes, 
and which controls even the delegation ittself. If further powers are wanted, the parties del- 
egating "alone must be the judge; " and this will be "conceded on all hands," when the 
principles underlying our system, and putting limits at one and the same time upon Govern- 
ments, Constitutions, and even Sovereign States, are well apprehended. That Mr. L. is 
himself an earnest seeker of that rule of principles, and would be of it a faithful applier, 
when once perceived, is evident from this paragraph, following [./>]'*, and preceding 
[J]69:- 

{R 94] " In considering the applicability of the rule in this instance, it must be conceded that if there 
«ver was a case, or one could be imagined, in which a civil war could or should vest in the victorious 
Government all the rights of the conqueror as in a foreign war, this is most emphatically that case ; for 
whether regarded in reference to the acknowledged absence of any justifying cau.'-e for the rebellion, or 
to the extent of national territory held for four years in exclusive and hostile array against the national 
forces, or to the worse than barbaric ill faith and fiendish cruelty with which the war on their part was 
waged, or to the enormous sacritices of precious life and countless treasure which it cost, the enormity 
of the crime against civilization and humanity has no parallel, and no punishment could exceed that 
due to the guilty authors of it. Justice and humanity, as well as national policy, would alike dictate 
that, at the close of the struggle, they should lie at the feet of their victors." 

Could Mr. Loring rid his argument of the bewilderment of Sovereignty in the Govern- 
ment, it would render more apprehensible his National Sovereignt3^ And as that " r«le '' 
comes to be better understood and applied, he will probablv find that a theory of a Federal 
Republic based upon State Sovereignty, is the most complete of all means to have a perfect 
Right of Command, and yet attain these indispensable limits upon the Agents in the exer- 
cise of State rights. 



§ 25.] Mr. Loring weakens our Rights of Conquest. 87 

grants by this supreme Nation of the United States — Mr. Loring 
in extracts [22]^^ and [25 p^ to the contrary notwithstanding — 
but all are to that body politic, or to its Governmental Agency. 

In entire confirmation of that idea, and a very essential one, 
we have the concluding sentence in [43]^*. Yet, were it " the 
sole judge," we should be in the unfortunate predicament of 
having our rights of conquest limited beyond those of other 
Sovereignties. Limited they are as to the Government, and by 
the Constitution beyond a doubt ; and that instrument never 
having been prepared in view of any such emergency,^ we 
should be unhappily circumstanced, if our rights of conquest 
were restricted to the letter of the Constitution. But, fortu- 
nately, there is not a word in the Constitution touching the 
main subject, all these rights of war between and of conquest 
over those States, being wholly extraneous, and resting upon 
the same basis with the Constitution itself; that basis being 
none other than " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," 
to which it will be found we must resort, whether we have any 
faith in the code or not. 

Now, according to my view, while the United States as a 
body politic, and also as an Agency, is limited in its rights of 
conquest; yet not being "the sole judge" in the premises, its 
limitations may not extend to the party or parties ordaining the 
constitutional limits. This authority may be, and doubtless is, 
coextensive with the Sovereignty of any other Nation ; so that 
the limitation, unavoidable in Mr. Loring's Nation of the United 
States, is avoided in a Federal Republic ; and in view of the 
necessity of being able in an emergency like the present, to 
acquire perfect rights of conquest, renders the latter greatly 
preferable. 

But candor requires the admission here, that important as is 
this principle of limitation, upon the Government, Mr. Loring 
takes away the force of these two extracts by a foot-note,^ the 
only one to his paper, which we shall presently consider. Here 
it seems in order to make the affirmation, that — 

1 This point had due consideration by Mr. Loring. See [A']73. 

2 Here I am in a quandary, whether to say any thing about that note or not; for upon re- 
ceiving the pamphlet edition I turned at once to tind that note, and looked clean through 
twice, but not a note seemed necessary, except the one about italicizing. In cutting up 
copies to attach to my MS., it would certainly have been discovered had it been inserted- 
It must be the imp of a printer's devil abstracted it; for it was very valuable, and the in- 
jurv is poorly repaired by its appearing in this copy. But what little is in my power to 
do for its preservation, is done cheerfully. 



88 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction. '' [T. 2. 

§ 26. Only by Virtue of State Sovereignty have we 
ACQUIRED Rights of Conquest. 
However imperfect this attempt, a proper examination will 
show, that were we a consolidated State or Nation, with a 
single Sovereignty, we could not have acquired rights of con- 
quest over parts of this Nation of the United States. And 
those over-conservatives, who, for fear of evil consequences, 
refuse to perceive and admit the truth, that we have acquired 
the rights of conquest, must be made to understand, that how- 
ever they may deny the acquisition, their feelings will not affect 
the result. Most of them call themselves Democrats, and pro- 
fess extreme devotion to the doctrine of State-Rights. Now I 
take the responsibility of the declaration, that these States can- 
not be free and independent, and not have made this conquest ; 
and if we be this sovereign Nation that Mr. Loring maintains, 
we could not have them. And though the possibility of such 
an acquisition would be unimportant to an ordinary Nation, it 
is to us of inestimable value, being indispensable to the due 
maintenance of our National Union. We need, therefore, to 
understand how it is that we could and have conquered the 
seceded States. And Mr. Loring himself, in describing the 
differences in the nature of States, with his usual clearness and 
precision, informs us. Following extract [8]^", which please 
read again, he observes : — 

[45''] In States of the first-named class, rebellion against the national sover- 
eignty, in whatever form, is treason in every individual engaged in it, and punish- 
able accordingly. 

In those of the second, the rebellion of any one State against the central author- 
ity does not render any of its citizens guilty of treason against it, nor make him 
personally punishable for that crime or otherwise. It is simply the violation or 
breach of the compact by the State to wliich its subjects owe exclusive allegiance ; 
and the only redress for the other parties is by war against the State, to compel the 
fulfilment of its obligations, or to obtain redress for the breach of them ; and, if 
they succeed in the conflict, the State becomes a conquered territory, over which 
the victors have all the rights of war, — including, of course, tliose to prescribe 
conditions on which the subdued State shall be re-admitted to the league, or may 
thereafter exercise any internal or external sovereignty. 

It was to this last-named class that the inhabitants of the rebel States claimed 
that they belonged ; alleging that they were sovereign, free, and independent States, 
united by the Constitution as by a compact or league only, from whicli they had 
the right to secede, as States, at pleasure, or for justifiable cause, — they being the 
exclusive judges of the existence of any. They claimed that they owed personal 
allegiance to their respective States, and not to the United States ; and that, in the 
lesistance by their States of the authority of the Government of the United States, 
they, as individuals, were not rebels or traitors, but persons acting in obedience to 



§ 26.] State Sovereignty requvdte to acquire Riglits of Conquest. 89 

their alleijiance to those States ; and xuliich, as such, were alone liable, if the league or 
compact had been unjustly violated by such resistance. And tliis, it is generally 
understood, is to be one of the principal grounds of defence of Jefferson Davis, if 
not the only one upon the merits, should he ever be put upon trial for treason. 

Every word of that we can adopt and vouch its truth. Be- 
cause these States are "those of the second" or Confederate 
class, have we the rights of conquest. And the only difficulty 
with the |)receding extract [8]^^, is the omission to recognize the 
principle of Representation or Republicanism, by which these 
States exercise their every prerogative, keeping the right of it in 
themselves, and merely delegating its exercise to their Agents, 
State or Federal. So that it is a fundamental error, that these 
States " separately neither claim nor are recognized to be dis- 
tinct members of the family of nations" [8]^". They unques- 
tionably are such, while their body politic of the United States 
has a quasi claim among them also, being dignified, not by a 
single Sovereignty of mere ordinary Nations, but with twenty- 
five, (for I deny that Tennessee is restored,) which ought to be 
thirty-six, and soon will be half a hundred or more. 

Is not this point in his argument, interpolated by way of illus- 
tration or elucidation, which the Author himself did not believe, 
and which, if true, destroys his own chief premise ; is it not 
actually the premise which leads directly to, and is indispensable 
to, his main conclusion, that we have obtained the rights of con- 
quest over the seceded States ? 

As already seen from extract [20]^^, the rights and effects of 
war continue the same as they were under the first compact. 
The difficulty with that Government was that it had not suffi- 
cient " internal Sovereignty," as Mr. L. expresses it, and he 
shows as we have seen [42]^^ [43]***, and [44]^'^, that the same 
difficulty, though less in degree, still continues. He argued, 
however, that against such a '' rebellion " the Government has 
full right to resist, by the laws of self-protection, and the powers 
implied and directly granted to it by the Constitution. That 
presentation he concludes with this inquiry : — 

[46*-'] .... What, then, is the remedy, and what are the consequences involved 
in the application of it f 

And it is obvious that war is the only remedy. Any effective denial or violations 
of these provisions of the Constitution by any State must be by forcible resistance 
of the lawful officers of the United States, civil or military, engaged in the duty of 
compelling compliance with them ; for so long as they sliould continue to be prac- 
tically obeyed, no mere protest against their obligation, by any mere manifesto or 
proclamation, would justify recourse to force of arms, anj' more tiian would the 
mere declaration of opposition to the Government, and of an intention to resist its 



90 Reply to 3I)\ Lor'mg upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

laws by force of arms, amount to treason under the Constitution. And, if such 
forcible resistance be resorted to by a State, the case presented becomes at once 
that of an organized irovernraent, possessing territorial jurisdiction, and asserting 
sovereignty and independence internal and external, and, claiming the personal 
allegiance of its citizens as j)aramount to all other allegiance, taking up arms to 
repel the attempt of another sovereign State to enforce obedience to its asserted 
authoritv. And this is nothing less than actual war — civil war indeed, but none 
the less actual war — between sovereign States, or those claiming to be such, and 
attended with all the attributes and consequences of war according to the public 
law, or law of nations. 

In an ordinary State or Nation an insurrection against the 
Government would seldom in its inception be styled civil war. 
However large, it must be of considerable continuance to be- 
come actual war, involving exchange of prisoners, etc. In our 
ignorance we imagined this to be merely a little " rebellion, to 
be squelched out in only ninety days," and our captives by land 
and sea were pirates and traitors. But our practical common- 
sense, in spite of theoretic ignorance, brought us soon to see that 
we were not subduing a rebellion, but in actual civil war, as the 
Crittenden-Johnson resolution declared. And here Mr. Loring 
well shows how it came about. One never heard of any town 
or county organizations in a revolt and in civil war ; but as the 
Tribes or States of ancient Israel had their civil wars, we have 
had ours ; and the lesson will teach us effectually the nature of 
this our Nation, and how from the very start at Fort Sumter, 
our contest was a civil war. 

Most assuredly when the difficulty comes to such a stand, 
" it is obvious that war is the only remedy." And every word 
of that admirable paragraph, — changing " another Sovereign 
State " to " other Sovereign States," — I adopt as my own, as 
truthfully declaring the nature of the contest, resulting from the 
nature of the parties in conflict. And although Mr. L. deems 
a qualification necessary, that if not " Sovereign States," they 
at least are parties ^^ claiming- to be such;" yet he himself effect- 
ually admits the justice of the claim, in truthfully affirming that 
we have obtained the rights of conquest over the seceded States, 
and in demonstrating by his able paper, the importance and 
necessity of " iJe-construction." If a mere ordinary Nation, we 
have naught to reconstruct ; can have no rights of conquest. 
If a genuine Federal Republic, we have the rights of conquesi, 
and the labor and responsibility of reconstruction devolve 
upon us.^ 

1 With usual appropriateness, paragraphs from No. 2 can be chinked in here : — 
[i^ioi] ''The soundness of a theory may be best illustrated by familiar examples. That of the 



§ 26.] State Sovereignty requisite to acquire Rights of Conquest. 01 

Mr. L. follows with citations from authorities in " the public 
law or Law of Nations " [39]'^, and then strikes the following 
clincher to his argument, which I take the liberty to adopt as 
more effectually clinching my own : — 

[47**] War, therefore, being the only possible solution of a controversy between 
one of the States and the Government of the United States, involving absolute de- 
nial and violation of the duties and obligations of the State, — the only tribunal to 
which appeal for a final decision could be made, — neither necessity nor propriety 
required that it should be set forth in the Constitution, as the means of determining 
the Issue made between them, any more than they would require the statement in 
a civil contract, that, if either sliould fail to fulfil the obligation which it imposed 
upon him, the other should have the right to appeal to a judicial tribunal for re- 
dress. 

Every word of that too is true, and the entire sentiment ; and 

supposed success of England in subduing the colonics in the \y.ir of the Revolution has been already 
adverted to. And if, in such a case, she would have had the constitutional right (whieh is believed to 
be undeniable) of imposing such terms and couilitious of restoration to the colonists, of their former 
political rights and privileges under their charters, as her Government might have considered to be 
demanded by justice and the future peace and security of the empire, what becomes of the distinction 
between a civil and a foreign war as to the power of the conqueror to dictate terms of peace ? " 

Have no anxiety about that "distinction." The settlement of our disputes will do more 
than any events of all time to bring about, in these days of principle-despising, correct 
ideas of the different sorts of States and Nations; and then " the distinction between a civil 
and a foreign war'' will become understood, and we shall find we have '• the power of the 
conqueror " to the full. 

" But a still more satisfactory illustration may be found by applying the theory to the case in hand. 
That theory is, that, in subduing the rebellion, the Government of the United States can only act 
rightfully within the limits of the. powers conferred by the Constitution ; and that tiuse poivers are con- 
fined to the restoration of the authority of the Constitution and laivs of the United States in the rebel 
States ; and therefore that upon the laying-down of their arms, and the proffered and apparent sub- 
mission of the rebels to .such authority, they became instantly, ipsisfactis, entitled to be re-instated in 
all their former political powers and privileges as States in the Union ; and that the Government has 
no right to interpose any such terms or conditions of such re-instatement as otherwise might be obvi- 
ously reasonable and necessai-y for the future peace and .safety of the nation, and which it might have 
imposed but for these limits upon its power affixed by the Constitution." 

Yet do not Mr. Loring's own arguments, starting from his premises of National Sove- 
reignty, lead directly to this conclusion? The subject has certainly befogged me. in spite 
of our Author's lucid exposition, if Judge Curtis be not right, and Mr. Loring not wrong, 
as to the consequences of subdinng a " rebellion." 

" Now, this theory manifestly involves the singular doctrine, that while the rebels might carry on 
the war, and, if successful, might dictate terms of peace without any limits or restraints, but those of 
the law of nation.s, and their own .sense of justice and humanity, — ' Heaven save the mark I ' — the 
Government of the United States is bound, not only by these laws and its sense of right, but al.so hand 
and foot by the iron bands of the Constitution, crippling its strength in the combat, and laying it, even 
in victory, at the feet of the conquered, for them to assume its powers, and enter at once upon the ad- 
ministration of its authority." 

" Heaven save the mark," say I too, for Mr. Loring will not. He wants to destroy our 
rights of conquest, literally wasting the gold so lavished, the precious blood that has been 
shed in a tight, where both parties, as we shall find, were contending as they believed for 
the same high and holy cause of State rights. And now that State rights are vindicated, 
and most significantly, by acquisition of the rights of conquest which the States that were 
true to the National compact have gained over those that were false, — though false in ig- 
norance ; Mr. Loring, forsooth, would destroy tliis priceless acquisition. And what does he 
get? W^hy the honor of subduing a " rebellion '" — a " rebellion " against his National 
Sovereignty ! " Heaven save the mark " ! ! ! 



02 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '■''Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

the recognition is important, that in the draft of such an instru- 
ment as a Constitution, some things are to be taken for granted, 
especially the fundamental principles and rights pertaining to 
all free and independent States, like this of war. Had the idea 
sooner occurred to my honorable contestant, it would have saved 
the innuendo in extract [23]-^5 against State Sovereignty, merely 
because it was not named in the Constitution ; for if not ma- 
terial to go into a particular exposition as to war, one of the 
powers or rights of Sovereignty, how could it be necessary, as 
to the Sovereignty, the Right of Command, itself? Unless a 
fundamental change was being wrought in the form of Govern- 
ment, as from Democracy to an Aristocracy or Monarchy, in 
silence concerning Sovereignty, would not the natural inference 
be that it remained unaltered ? 

But " war therefore " — and the chief reason is that these 
States are of the second, or Confederate class, described in ex- 
tract [45]'^'' — "being the only possible solution of a controversy 
between one of the States, and the Government of the United 
States ; " does it not follow that some peculiarity of structure 
characterizes this Nation of the United States, essentially differ- 
ent from ordinary States or Nations? Here are a State and a 
Nation at loggerheads, involving even the meaning of those 
words themselves ; whereas in ordinary cases the word State or 
Nation may be used ad libitum, without essential injury. Other 
peculiarities might affect that body politic, relating as well to 
war or any other rights, as to the name. Is it a matter of 
no consequence to ascertain wherein the peculiarity consists? 
If war be " the only and ultimate tribunal," as Mr. L. better 
expresses it in the next paragraph, have we not a peculiar form 
of Government? It is ordinarily supposed that Governments 
are instituted over individuals, and between or among States, 
for the express object of preventing a resort to force, which is 
war when employed between large numbers ; and especially 
when the contest is between duly constituted Governments and 
States. As Hamilton said in the Philadelphia Convention, — I 
quote from memory, — " there is a coercion of law and a coer- 
cion of arms." Is the latter our main reliance ? 

Mr. L. continuing, remarks : — 

[48*^] In this case, botli parties did tlius appeal to the only and ultimate tribunal 
between contending States, and took upon themselves respectively the consequences 
of its judgment. 

It' that judgment liad been in favor of the confederate States, the sovereignty, 



§ 26.] State Sovereignty requisite to acquire Rlglits of Conquest. 03 

independence, and risht of secession which they asserted, would have been vindi- 
cated, and finally adjudged to them, as matter of future indisputable right. And 
the United States would not only have been bound by that decision, but might also 
have been justly, by the law of nations, compelled to enter into such stipulation, 
and give such security, as the confederate States might reasonably exact, to pre- 
vent the United States from ever thereafter re-asserting claims to their allegiance 
or obedience. But the judgment was against them, and a corresponding just right 
accrued to the United States, not only to enforce obedience to the duties imposed 
by the Constitution, and keep the confederate States under military control until 
tlie peaceful fulfilment of them could be relied upon ; but also to require full indem- 
nity for the wrongs and losses caused by the rebellion, including payment of the 
debt incurred in suppressing it, if the confederate States could re-imburse the 
amount of it, and any security which reason and justice might show to be necessary 
to prevent any future perpetration of the crime. 

Though war is doubtless the " ultimate tribunal between 
contending States;" yet, thank God, it is not "the only" nor 
the best one which these States have devised for the decision 
of their controversies. And it will be found, that had the 
South resorted to the courts to decide the points in dispute, 
as the personal liberty laws of the several States ; their right 
to take slaves and to hold them in every part of the Louisi- 
ana purchase, etc. ; they would have had victory to their satis- 
faction, and to the complete establishment of their cherished 
doctrine of State Sovereignty. But they chose war ; and a 
righteous God has given them signal defeat, even to entire sub- 
jugation. And though the alternative does not follow, that the 
success of the Confederates would have established the right of 
Secession, only the fact ; yet the perfect conquest which we 
have achieved, gives us every right over those States which it is 
possible to acquire according to the Code of Nations. Mr. 
Loring is very right in his practical views as to the rights of 
conquest. Only where his theories as to the Sovereignty of the 
United States mislead him, does he fall into errors in practice, 
as in limiting our rights of conquest. In evidence of this let 
us consider: — 

§ 27. What will Mr. Loring Reconstruct ? 

Our Author has not divided his subject as would have been 
desirable to a maintainer of State-rights. Such an one would 
first inquire what is to be done with regard to the States, then 
as to the State Governments; then as to the Nation of the 
United States, then as to the National Government. 

These would seem to be simple questions of law, as our 
Author affirms [33j^^, to be solely determined by the application 



94 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

to them of the proper principles, which are found only in the 
Code of Nations, deduced by the wisest of men from " the Laws 
of Nature and of Nature's God," and so solemnly appealed to 
by the fathers in the beginning of these States, in our Declara- 
tion of Independence. It is therefore but natural to a legal pro- 
ficient, that our Author, following [33]*^^, should reiterate his 
appeal to law after his fashion : — 

[49^^] Tlie action of Congress, therefore, seems not only justifiable, but an ab- 
solute necessity. All these questions being obviously matters of legal right, — of 
law purely, — the decision and the provision for them must of like necessity rest 
•with the law-making power, — that is, the Congress, — or with the judiciary. And 
nothing can seem more manifestly in contradiction to all legal principle, or a plainer 
usurpation, tiian for the executive department of the Government, whose oflfice is 
confined to the administration of the law, to assume the right of deciding upon tiie 
nature of those relations and the manner of their restoration. 

Is that a judicious argument about law ? In Latin and 
French the word means right as well as laiv ; and do not both 
obligations apply equally well to Congress as to the President? 
Because Congress is made the law-making power upon specified 
subjects, is it above all law ? It would seem that Mr. Loring 
having run back the subject of law to Congress as a source of 
law, and having got it in a place of safety, it had best not be 
further disturbed, for its privacy certainly is not intruded upon 
for several paragraphs. But again deserting law, he takes up a 
" proposition about State rights," that at all events should be per- 
tinent. But here, instead of State rights. National Sovereignty 
seems to have taken entire possession of Mr. Loring's reasoning 
faculties ; and as we saw in [25]^^, it becomes the source of all 
rights, — except what Congress has. It is not surprising he thus 
discourses : — 

[GO-""] The next proposition is, that State rights, being corporate rights or priv- 
ileges or franchises only, belonging to the States as subjects of the national Gov- 
ernment, and being lost or forfeited by their rebellion against it, never could revert 
or be recovered by their subjugation or submission; but any restoration of them 
must be by a grant from the sovereign power which created them. 

State riglits and powers are such, and such only, as were granted, defined, or rec- 
ognized by tiio Constitution. The States are in no sense sovereign under it, nor 
are they in any j)art of it styled or recognized to be such. They have no ri<jht to 
deride, am/ (/uesiioti under it in the last resort, but are always amenable and subject to 
the final decision of the General Government upon it. In certain cases tiiey may 
sue and be sued, and in such cases must submit to the judgment of the supreme 
judicial authority, like any other subject. They are component i)arts of tiie nation 
as " bodies politic," or "corporate bodies," or " political societies" as Mr. Madison 
styles them, in tlie same manner as individual citizens are component parts of it. 
However distasteful the truth may be to the magniloquent advocates of State rights, 



§ 27.] What will Mr. Loring Reconstruct? 95 

the truth, nevertheless, is, that the States are subjects of the Government estahlished 
by the Constitution, and bound by the law in the same manner as other subjects. 

No great matter, then, can it be how such nniserable bodies pol- 
itic — are the things really bodies politic and corporate ? — are 
re-created. As we have seen, though part and parcel of this Sov- 
ereign Nation of the United States, they have not only suc- 
ceeded in conquering themselves, but they have destroyed them- 
selves, committed suicide, are guilty of felo de se, are tabula 
rasce ; and, what is more, just as the whale swallowed itself, they 
wiped themselves out ; for Mr. Loring goes on to say : — 

[5P'] The right of representation in Congress, and so to participate in the ad- 
ministration of the General Government, was not one belonging to them in their 
original capacities when the Constitution was formed, nor one created by them as 
the framers of the Constitution. It was one conferred upon and granted to them 
by the whole people of the United States, in the formation of that frame or struct- 
ure of government. The people of the United States was the grantor, and the several 
States respectively were the grantees, of that right. It was not one which they had the 
power to lay down and re-assume at pleasure. Such a principle would be ob- 
viously destructive of a government created for the ruling and preservation of a 
nation ; but the right was given and made dependent upon the existence and fulfil- 
ment of certain relations and conditions prescribed by the Constitution, and in such 
manner that it could not exist unless they were complied with. 

These rights, then, were merely corporate rigiits, belonging to the States only 
as political corporations or societies, and implying corresponding allegiance and 
obedience to the Government from which they were derived, in the same manner 
as do the rights and privileges of any other corporations created by a civil govern- 
ment. And it is not perceived why they may not be lost and forfeited by misuser 
or nonuser, in the same manner as may be any otlier corporate rights created by 
sucii governments. Nor is it seen why Congress might not, in the exercise of its 
supreme power of deciding or providing means for deciding all questions of law 
arising under the Constitution, have provided a mode of trying and determining 
questions, like the present, concerning tiie forfeiture or loss by States of their polit- 
ical rights and franchises under it. 

No such tribunal, indeed, could be necessary in anticipation of flagrant rebellion 
and civil war, in which such civil rights and privileges would be not only renounced 
and abandoned, but the wealth and strength derived from their enjoyment and the 
organization on which they were founded, were to be the chief means of sustaining 
the contest against the Government which created them. Such rebellion and war, 
as has before been shown and seems to be self evident, is, of necessity, a destruc- 
tion of any corporate rights or franchise under the Government thus assailed by the 
corporation itself. And, no other tribunal having been established to pass in judg- 
ment upon such forfeiture or destruction, the power of doing so, if any judgment 
were needed, necessarily resides in the Government itself in pohtical as well as in 
legal questions. 

That doubtless is a logical deduction from Mr. Loring's actual 
premise of National Sovereignty, though considerably antago- 
nistic to his introductory heading of State rights. Nor here 
more than elsewhere, can any one admit his premises and resist 



06 Reply to Mr. Lorimj upon '•'• Reconstruct ion'' ['!\ 2. 

his conclusions ; and even the concluding sentence of the second 
paragraph above, must be received in all its length and breadth 
as truth. What possible question can be imagined, as to which 
the National Sovereignty, and Congress its enrdiodirnent and 
lawgiver, may not issue its edict, binding States and Nation, 
as well as individual Citizens ? 

From this it would appear that neither reconstruction of States 
nor State Governments, is a subject of any considerable im- 
portance, certainly of no ditliculty. As for the Nation of the 
United States being infracted, its Sovereignty in the least 
dimmed or impaired, — such an impossible idea as that, finds 
uo lodgment in the head, at all events, of our esteemed Author. 

That we have the rights of conquest over the seceded States, 
is not to be denied. Yet the Federal Government itself is not 
the proprietor of these rights, according to my V\e\Y. It is the 
mere trustee, the Agency whereby these Sovereign States have 
exercised their war power. For the establishment of their rights 
was the war prosecuted ; for them have th(! rights of conquest 
been obtained. Congress is duly authorized to " make all need- 
ful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property 
belonging to the United States," no matter how acquired. But 
the whole subject of admission to the Union being definitely 
considered by the specific provision for admitting " neiv States," 
it operates as a restriction as to the old States, uo power thereto 
relating having been delegated. And we shall find that our 
Union being broken de fctcto, though not de jure, — not only by 
Secession but by war — is what must be reconstructed. This 
is the great work before us, to which Pufendorf refers, and needs 
not expansion here. If correct in this, the question of Recon- 
struction becomes truly momentous, and we need all the lights 
upon the subject from the study of principles and of history that 
can be obtained. 

But it on the other hand, we are this Consolidated Nation 
which Mr. Loring imagines, with the Sovereignty in this Federal 
Government, making it nothing else but an Unlimited Aristoc- 
racy ; if this Sovereignty has had merely to subdue a wicked 
rebellion, — and yet, marvellous to say, has obtained over the 
rebels the rights of conquest, — it is then pretty plain sailing for 
Congress ; and the Representatives being already elected, the 
People need not bother themselves about such an abstract polit- 
ical question. Why in the naine of reason this powerful argu- 



§ 27.] What will Mr. Loring Reconstruct ? 97 

ment about this bootless subject ? Nor did Mr. Loring throw 

much light upon the matter, when, in considering the present 

rights of the seceded States, he had previously remarked : — 

[52'^*] It is much to be regretted, that this question has been too often, if not gen- 
erally,,discussed under a form which is believed to be, not only no true statement 
of the real issue, but one tending greatly to distort and obscure it ; namely, whether 
such States, by reason of the rebellion of their inhabitants, were to be accounted as 
in or out of the Union. No such issue has arisen upon the tiicts, and the question 
in that form is worse than a merely profitless abstraction : it is a pernicious play 
upon words. 

With due deference for experienced judgment, may it not be 
a matter of some consequence whether those States be " in or 
out of the Union " ? However immaterial to a Consolidist, to 
a State-rights Democrat like our friend, ought it not to be of 
prime consideration ? The first question in determining what 
ought to be done, is to ascertain what has been done ; whether 
the seceded States are still members of our National Union de 
facto and de jure ; and whether and how we have the rights of 
conquest. Our Author, however, may find it to his doctrine a 
" pernicious play upon words ; " for unless this view prove erro- 
neous, he will have to abandon the rights of conquest, which he 
obtains in conclusion, or confess to error in his premises, and 
acknowledge it is State and not " National Sovereignty " that 
has acquired them. Surely, in an argument elaborate as this 
concerning Reconstruction, it is of some consequence to ascer- 
tain in the first place what is to be reconstructed. Correction 
upon this point might aid somewhat in the convergence of 
premises and conclusions, which now appear to be travelling in 
opposite directions. Now, how is it that this discreet statesman 
has made such a lapse between premises and conclusions ? And, 
as in solving an algebraic problem, we free it of supernumerary 
terms, let us see what is superfluous in Mr. Loring's argument. 
And first — 

§ 28. Dividing Sovereignty misleads Mr. Loring. 
The a'ctual division of the Sovereignty itself is prominent 
throughout Mr. Loring's paper. Nearly every extract involves 
the necessity, and [6]i5, [10]^o, [11]^^, [L4]^5^ [15]^S [18]^^ 
[19J52, [21]^3^ [22]^*, are grounded upon the idea; and it is 
prominent in subsequent extracts. The actual transfer of in- 
ternal Sovereignty to the United States by the present Con- 
stitution, was that which constituted the especial change, as 

7 



98 Re^yly to 3Ir. Loring upon " Recomtruction.'" [T. 2. 

Mr. L. believes, and made the United States completely sover- 
eign, as affirmed [5]i3, [21]53, [22]^*, and [23]55. Observe, he 
makes no recognition of the ditFerence between the Sovereignty 
itself, and its exercise; but the power and the right are con- 
founded as one and the same thing. 

Starting with Sovereignty in the Nation of the United States, 
with only the slight lapse under the Articles of Confederation, 
he finds his Nation at last pretty effectually sovereign, the States 
themselves ov^ing " obligations for obedience to its authority, 
and fidelity to its support," [25]^'^ ; and confidence strengthens 
with the force of his argument, [5]i3, [29]«5, [32]*5v, [63]"3, etc., 
until in [Sl]^''^ the States are found to have no rights not de- 
rived from the United States, " implying corresponding alle- 
giance and obedience to the Government from which they were 
derived." 

But as we have seen, this involves considerable difficulties, not 
to say contradictions and absurdities. It results, too, from the 
endeavor to maintain and make reasonable this fanciful division 
of the Sovereignty ; for Mr. Loring is too good a State-rights 
Democrat to put all the Sovereignty into his Nation. Take 
the plain, natural teachings of political science, and apply them 
to our system, and it is harmonious and complete ; and not only 
so, but all our documents and insignia are in wonderful harmony, 
and our entire system can be explained upon scientific principles. 
But to adopt the anomalous theory of a divided Sovereignty, we 
must in the first place explain away the plain reading of our 
Constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, etc., or else give 
them the lie direct ; and we are, besides, overthrowing the whole 
system of political science. How much more appropriate to 
Young America to sit at the feet of wisdom and learn its teach- 
ings, instead of attempting to found anew an entire system of 
truth I 

Evidently the necessity of having somewhere an actual Sov- 
ereignty, which this learned jurist knows in both head and 
heart, is like that of Jehovah, one and indivisible, causes him to 
make of the United States a Nation antecedent to the States. 
Without a complete analysis of the subject, his legal knowledge, 
as well as practical good sense, teaches him that there must be a 
primal source of power somewhere, that establishes the internal 
and external Sovereignty, as he calls it, — authority, as I would 
say, — and this he endeavors to place in the Nation of the 



§ 28.] Dividing Sovereignty misleads Mr. Loring. 99 

United States. Besides the extracts [ll]"-[17]5i, Mr. L. had 
said early in his argument, among other things, to prove that 
the genuine Nationality was there : — 

[53"] The first Congress, which assembled in 1774, adopted the significant title, 
" The delegates appointed by the good people of these colonies ; " thus emphatically de- 
claring their union as one people, struggling in a common cause. They asserted, 
as great constitutional rights common to all, the liberties and immunities of the com- 
mon law of England, and declared themselves as united for the common defence of 
those rights. 

And thus was the incipient, and soon to become the irrevocable, step taken to 
constitute themselves the citizens of a new empire or nation. 

Too much cannot be made of Union as indispensable to the 
preservation, as well as to the progress of these States. Beyond 
a doubt it has been the prime source, under Heaven, of our 
success in every respect. But the question is as to the kind of 
Union, whether Federal or Consolidated. Mr. Loring seems de- 
termined to have it the latter, and seeks consistently to find a 
Nation in which to place the Sovereignty, putting it originally 
in the whole People of the United States. But the facts, par- 
ticularly under the Confederation, not justifying this course alto- 
gether, he is compelled to adopt the Wheaton idea of internal 
and external Sovereignty ; which inadvertently become separate 
and distinct rights, instead of qualifying adjectives of one and 
the same indivisible Right of Command. Herein he is in direct 
conflict with the Declaration of Independence, which without 
any qualification as to Sovereignty or any subordinate authority, 
explicitly declared that the Colonies had become " free and inde- 
pendent States." But the contradiction is still more positive 
with his own State Constitution, to which he has time and again 
sworn that solemn oath, vowing his allegiafice to his sovereign 
Commonwealth. Has he falsely sworn ? Which tells the truth, 
the Constitution and the Declaration, or Mr. Loring? But there 
is also — 

§ 29. Another Difficulty, confounding States and State 

Governments. 

Mr. Loring remarks in continuation of extracts [22]^, [23]^^ 
and [24]57 : _ 

[54''^'-^] Much profitless discussion has taken place upon the manner in which the 
Constitution was adopted ; the advocates of secession and other apologists of it as- 
serting that the Constitution was the act, or creation of the State governments, in 
the exercise of State sovereignties, while others contend that it was the creation 
of the whole people of the several States, acting as one people, for the establish- 
ment of one national government. 



100 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '•'■Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

Nothing is plainer, however, than that the Slate governments had nothing to do 
■with the matter, further than to recommend to their several peoples to meet to- 
gether and appoint delegates to conventions to represent and act for them upon the 
question of its adoption, and to report their decisions to the Congress. 

This was the only course wliich was open to secure the uniform calling of such 
conventions, — to give the legislative sanction of each State to any transfer or sur- 
render which the people might see fit to make to the General Government of any 
of the powers which they had heretofore vested in the State governments ; and 
above all was tlie only mode of obtaining the true result of a popular vote of the 
whole people upon the subject ; it being obvious that the various interests, opinions, 
and sentiments of the whole people could be far better ascertained by this mode of 
voting upon the question in divisions or districts, than it could be by a general vote, 
in which the majority of the whole might control and constrain the universal wish 
or interests of large and important sections of the country. It is undeniably true, 
that the people of each State were so far sovereign and independent that tliey could 
not be required to surrender that sovereignty and independence, to the extent re- 
quired by the Constitution, without their consent; and this would of necessity re- 
quire the inhabitants of each State to vote separately and collectively on the ques- 
tion. But it is none the less true, that the decision was not by the State govern- 
ments in their corporate capacity, but by the people in their primary capacity, de- 
ciding whether they would or would not become one people with those of all the 
other States, under one form of entire national sovereignty. 

The discussion has indeed been profitless, because of careless- 
ness in the use of words resulting in misleading syllogisms, as 
this extract exhibits. Whatever " the advocates of secession 
and other apologists of it assert," no man who understands the 
A, B, C of State rights, ever understood "that the Constitution 
was the act or creation of the State Governments.'''' This wind- 
mill, for the original construction of which Mr. Loring is not re- 
sponsible, many a redoubtable knight has tilted against, and the 
honor is equal to that gained by his illustrious prototype. And 
that first paragraph, showing that Mr. Loring can perceive the 
difference between the whole People of the United States, and 
the " one National Government ; " cannot his optics be applied 
with equal discrimination to the People of the States and to 
their State Governments ? 

Makes he not another nonsequitur? According to his argu- 
ment, because the Constitution was not ratified by the State 
Governments.) which is freely admitted, therefore it was ratified 
by the ivhole People of the United States, which not being 
admitted, Mr. Loring will please to prove. Some enthymemes 
are admissible, and Mr. Loring seems to possess skill in their 
use ; but that twist in logic cannot there be allowed. Not that 
I would presume to question our Author's positive declaration, 
did not his penultimate sentence of that last paragraph above, 
more than intimate — it " undeniably " affirms — an antagonis- 



§ 29.] 3Ir. Loring confounds States and State Govermnents. 101 

tic idea. For, that " it is undeniably true that the People of each 
State" had a voice in the Constitution, receives strongest con- 
firmation in the 7th article of that instrument, which so far from 
recognizing the whole People of the United States as having 
any authority in the premises, distinctly declares that — 

The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the estab- 
lishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifi/ing the same. 

In the second paragraph, Mr. L. states the truth, as usual 
when he presents a fact instead of an argument. Yet it is not 
to be admitted that the State Legislatures could not have 
bound the States, even in this fundamental compact. It would 
depend upon the extent of authority delegated to the Legisla- 
ture ; and I hope to prove in subsequent efforts, that the Na- 
tion of the United States was duly, legitimately created by the 
first compact of Union, as Mr. L. declares [17]°^ ; and that the 
present compact, which merely varies the conditions and the 
mode of exercising the powers, " in order to form a more perfect 
Union," might have also been ratified by the Legislatures ; 
though it is better to have adopted the course that was taken. 

This confounding of States and State Governments, causes 
much of the perplexity in Mr. Loring's argument, mainly so 
clear and irresistible, granting his premises. It is this notion, 
too, putting Sovereignty into the Government instead of the 
State, which perhaps has aided to the concluding idea of his 
previous paragraph [23]'^% he imagining that we must have a 
National Sovereignty, inasmuch as we had a National Govern- 
ment. And this brings him subsequently, [25]^^ and [5]^-^, to 
imagine the entire revolution in the nature of our Government, 
making even the States themselves, despite that penultimate sen- 
tence of his own, to owe allegiance to the National Government. 

Here, also, is he forced to an actual division of the Sover- 
eignty. " The people of each State were so far sovereign and 
independent," etc. That is, they were partly sovereign, partly 
not sovereign (a notion of Madison's) ; and the part they did 
not have, of course belonged to the Nation of the United States. 

But Mr. L. also perfectly solves the difficulty he raises. The 
State Governments as such, as he says, only called upon the 
sovereign People to appoint their delegates to consider the rati- 
fication of the Constitution. It was well that the Governn>ent 
itself should thus recognize and acquiesce in the transfer of power 
which was about to be made from it to the Federal Agency ; 



102 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.''' [T. 2. 

and precisely as Mr. L. says, it was merely a " transfer or sur- 
render [the former is the more correct word] which the People 
might see fit to make to the General Government of any of the 
powers which they had heretofore vested in the State Govern- 
ments." Had Mr. L. only held to that correct idea of delegated 
authority, he could never have written that last sentence above. 

The Government is not the State, as Mr. Loring proves, and 
would do well to hold to ; and it was the States, not their Gov- 
ernments, which ratified the Constitution. " It is undeniably 
true [too] that the People of each State " — that " the People in 
their priviary capacity decided whether they would or would not 
become one People with those of all the other States." Yet 
7iot " under one form of entire National Sovereignty ; " for as 
before observed, it was their special fear that the Constitution 
would effect this, that caused the opposition to it. What they 
desired was to effect National Union upon the basis of State 
Sovereignty. Should not Mr. Loring prove that he is right and 
the fathers wrong ; not trust assertion upon so important a 
point ? 

That Mr. Loring has distinct ideas as to the Government 
being an Agency, while at the same time he endeavors to make 
it supreme, is apparent in the following : — 

[55^^] But independently of the right of the General Government to prescribe 
the conditions upon which tlie inlmhitants of the rebel States maj be restored to 
equal political privileges with the other States under the Constitution, as one re- 
sulting from the war, there are several other grounds upon which, as is believed, 
it may be satisfactorily vindicated. 

As the Constitution contains no express provisions determining the status of the 
inhabitants of a State in rebellion, or their right to restoration of political privileges 
as a State under the Constitution, after subjugation or submission to the authority 
of the General Government, such restoration is necessarily one of construction, or 
implied right or power, to be settled upon general principles. And the proposition 
which first suggests itself is that the power of deciding upon the right of such res- 
toration, and upon the terms of it, resides in the General Government as matter oj 
absolute and inevitable necessity. 

See what a 7ion sequitur is made in that second paragraph, 
which even the italics will not remedy. Because " the Consti- 
tution contains no express provisions " upon some important 
matter, is it therefore " matter of absolute and inevitable neces- 
sity" for "the General Government" to take it in hand? 
Recognized in the ensuing paragraph [56]"^^ as an " agent of 
the People," " the proposition that first suggests itself" to my 
bew"ildered vision would be, that the authority whereby the 



§ 29.] Mr. Loving confounds States and State Governments. 103 

Agency operates, might possibly have somewhat to say in the 
premises. 

But the argument in support of that hypothesis, is more 
remarkable than the proposition itself; and had our Author 
designed something appropriate to this head of mine, he could 
scarcely have improved this paragraph : — 

[56^"*] The Constitution is the supreme law, and the Government established 
by it was for the purpose of carrying that law into efifect. Tiie Government is the 
sole agent of the people for this purpose, and so has supreme authority to decide 
every question arising under it, in the particular modes pointed out by the Consti- 
tution where such questions admit of their application, and by its own action where 
none such are provided. The Government represents the whole people of the 
United States in all matters of law arising under the Constitution, as in all other 
tilings provided for by it; and has not only the power, but is under the obligation, 
" to provide for the common defence and general welfare of tlie United States," 
and " to make all laws which shall be necessarj- and proper for carrying into exe- 
cution the foregoing power, and all other powers, vested by the Constitution in the 
government of the United States. 

The Constitutional references will be noticed hereafter, when 
the extent of authority of the Federal Government will be 
shown. But here let us consider another non sequitur. How is 
it that because " the Constitution is the supreme law," and " the 
Government is the sole agent of the People " to execute the law, 
it " so has supreme authority to decide every question " ? If 
an Agent, is it supreme ? May not the party whose Agent the 
Government is, have a voice in even the affairs delegated to 
the Agent ? But Mr. Loring stops not with the limits of the 
Constitution. Indeed, the provisions are of no account, for the 
Government decides " by its own action where none such are 
provided.'' Does Story ti-eat of that sort of Agency ? 

But the Government is at all events admitted to be an Agency, 
and though rather peculiar in its qualities — another branch of 
law for Mr. Loring to elucidate — yet we will stick a pin there, 
to hold him to that point ; for although our Author thus occa- 
sionally presents the correct idea of delegated authority, the 
Government in the main is the soul of the State, the life of the 
Nation. Discussing the powers of the Federal Government, even 
as enumerated in the Constitution, he inquires if the States may 
do certain acts — which they may not, because of their covenants 
to the contrary — thus concluding: — 

[57*'^] .... or may openly violate the Constitution or the laws of the land, and 
set the Government of the United States at defiance 1 — and that there is no redress, 
but that these violations of the Constitution must be quietly acquiesced in as reme- 
diless "? Are these provisions — so express, and so obviously essential to the inter- 



104 Rejoly to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

nal peace, the prosperity, the unity, the sovereignty, and security of tlie nation, and 
without the power to compel the fulfihnent of which it woukl cease to he a nation — 
meaningless words, a mere brutum fulmen "of sound and fury, signifying nothing " ? 
Such a construction of the Constitution must be accounted palpable nonsense upon 
any other theory than that of the absolute right of secession. What, then, is the 
remedy, and what are the consequences involved in the application of it ? 

Then in continuation is [46]^^, declaring "that war is the only 
remedy," for a difficulty between a State and the United States ; 
presenting in juxtaposition a strange contrast to the above. For 
he has no right to question the claim of a State to "the personal 
allegiance of its Citizens as paramount to all other allegiance." 
What other allegiance can exist? Can he "serve God and 
Mammon ? " Does the oath he has so often sworn recognize his 
allegiance to be due to any Government, or to aught else than 
his sovereign State ? The compact of the Citizens of Massachu- 
setts was first to create the State ; and then the '■'■frame of Gov- 
ernment''^ was instituted, as a means to preserve the State, and 
orderly to conduct its affairs. Yet because a Government is 
changed, — Federal, it is true, — revolutionized, which the States 
at their sovereign will and pleasure may do, Mr. Loring would 
give this Agency, this machinery of the States, the right and 
power of resistance to its creator. Why not as well to the State 
Government, and even better ? In the right of revolution of the 
Federal Government, the restraint of the Federal principle is 
involved, which not suiting Mr. Loring's hypothesis, he over- 
looks ; for it may not be changed except according to the terms 
of the compact. It is also true, and freely admitted, that the 
South have revolutionized by Secession, for Secession means 
Revolution and nothing less ; and they have made it complete 
by war, which annuls all compacts between the parties. But 
because of that wrong, "have we no better remedy than to exalt 
the Federal Government to Sovereignty, establishing it over in- 
stead of " between the States " ? Very appropriate is Mr. L.'s 
concluding query above. 

The true remedy is not to be found in the views our Author 
presents in continuation, — [46]% [40]8o, [39]'8, [47]«\ [48j92, 
[43]% and [44]''^; from the last of which he goes on to say : — 

[58*''] Tliis view, it is believed, furnishes a satisfactory answer to tlie insensate 
clamor raised against the advocates of the powers of the General Government as 
founded upon the rights of war, and by wliich demagogues and sympathizers in 
rebellion have attempted to darken the understanding of the people, and lead them 
to believe that the assertion of such powers is nothing siiort of advocacy of an usur- 
pation, trampling the Constitution under the heel of military despotism, instead of 



§ 29.] Mr. Loring confounds States and State Crovernments. 105 

being, as it trulj- is, a vindication of tlie only means which tlie Government possesses 
of self-preservation,- and for maintaining the Constitution and the life of the nation 
secure against future like outrage and danger. 

Many of the State-rights school in the North, greatly erred in 
judgment as to the rights and powers of the Federal Govern- 
ment in conducting the war. When the South assailed it, and 
at Fort Sumter began to dispossess these Sovereignties of their 
joint rights in that part of our National Union ; the whole power 
of defence having been delegated, the Federal Government was 
duly authorized to prosecute the vVar according to its own judg- 
ment, with no restriction upon raising armies by conscription or 
bounties. And had the war been understood to be in defence of 
our State rights, as it should have been, and in accord with the 
Crittenden-Johnson resolution, there would have been no such 
division of sentiment in the North as we had. Perverting the war 
from one of defence, and making it one of aggression — attacking 
and subduing re^e/s, instead of defending State rights — was the 
prime cause of northern disagreements; and it resulted from this 
chimerical notion that "the Government is the life of the Nation," 
instead of being a subordinate means instituted for the mainte- 
nance of State Sovereignty. 

As a result of this view, whether true or false, we have in the 
ensuing paragraph [34]^°, the claims of "the Nation's life,'' which 
in [50]^* and [51]^° seem to reach the climax of supremacy. Yet 
even there Mr. Loring only follows distinguished lead ; the Su- 
preme Court of the United States in its first important decision, 
Chisholmv. Georgia,^ having held that such was the Sovereignty 
of the Federal Government it could not be sued, but the States 
could. 

As we have repeatedly seen, Mr. Loring understands that 
the People established the Government, though he thinks it was 

1 That case, Chishobn v. Georr/ia, will soon be examined in another paper to substantiate 
in part the position assumed, that most of our errors, which have culminated in this civil 
war, started with the fathers themselves. While all honor is to be given the wise, and good, 
and great men who framed our incomparable system, we want to know wherein they were 
wrong as well as wherein they were right. We shall find that the perfect absorption of the 
sons in the practical enjoyment of the fathers' wisdom, has produced more and more igno- 
rance of principles ; and their errors upon some points, which their knowledge of other truths 
counteracted, have grown and multiplied with us, without any countervailing tendencies. 

'The decision in tliat case was correct, as with few exceptions they have been, the errors 
lying in the obiter dicta. That mistake led to the folly of adopting the 11th amendment; for 
the Citizens had the practical good sense to determine, that if somehow a supreme power had 
risen over the States which could not be sued, the States should not be at all events. And 
it was restricted to them; no one having imagined that the explicit provision of the Consti- 
tution authorizing suits, had the slightest application to the " supreme National Govern- 
ment." 



106 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

the People of the whole United States, instead of the People by 
States, and in [51]^'^ reiterates the idea with italics. He strangely 
forgets, however, that the People which instituted the Govern- 
ment, might have still a voice upon some questions arising 
under these unforeseen circumstances ; and with curious logic, 
from his italicized words that " the People of the United States 
was the grantor,^'' he goes on to argue at length that the Gov- 
ernment itself must be the final judge in the premises, and puts 
another cap on his climax after this fashion : — 

[59''^] The Government, formed by the Constitution, represents the nation in 
everj' thing pertaining to it as a nation. Its life is the life of the nation. And it 
not only has the right, but is, on every principle of duty, bound, to protect that life 
at all costs and all hazards ; and for that end to exercise other powers than those 
expressly given by the Constitution, if manifestly necessary for that end, upon the 
obvious principle that the possession of such ultimate power of self-preservation 
was necessarily implied in its creation. 

It will be conceded from these extracts and others, that the 
distinction between the People and the Government is not quite 
so perfectly preserved as would be desirable in such an argu- 
ment. Mr. Loring believes in the Sovereignty of the People, 
and would never yield that cardinal principle were he left to 
follow the current of his own intellect and heart. Yet unac- 
countably, and, in spite of himself, his argument becomes per- 
verted, getting the Sovereignty into the Government. So that 
some potent influence must operate to lead this learned civilian 
directly against his own desires and better judgment. Then, 
as we saw under the preceding head, Mr. L. understands the 
indivisibility of the Sovereignty, and would hold to it as the 
sheet-anchor of his political as well as religious faith. Never- 
theless, by some means or other the external Sovereignty comes 
to be possessed by one Government, and the internal by another, 
effecting an entire division. Yet, notwithstanding this division, 
Mr. Loring endeavors to prove a paramount Sovereignty in his 
Nation of the United States as a consolidated People. There- 
fore it follows — and this I trust on Mr. Loring's account will 
prove to be no non sequitur — that 

§ 30. Paradoxical Writers mislead Mr. Loring. 

Who they are that have obtained this mastery over the 
head of our Author, in spite not only of heart but headings 
too, it may be difficult to discover. But it can scarcely be 
possible that the lamentable suasion is at all attributable to 



§ 30.] Paradoxical Writers mislead Mr. Loring. 107 

the writers alluded to in [52)97. " Forewarned, forearmed," in 
this case surely. No philosopher so moon-struck as to discover 
more than a shadow in the idea of Union, could have drawn 
Mr. Loring aside from his main premise. His heart might 
quiver, but his head is clear and firm ; and whatever becomes 
of his cherished State-rights faith, he is logically assured, that 
according to the doctrine of National Sovereignty, it is all moon- 
shine that a State could get from under it and out of the Union. 
" Worse than a merely profitless abstraction ; it is a pernicious 
play upon words " ; and no such player could possibly influence 
our Author. 

As to who are the necromancers, we will not stop to ascer- 
tain ; it only being indispensable to Mr. Loring's credit to prove 
it could not be that set of noodles. But whether they shall 
ever be discovered or not, it is quite evident, that no candid 
reader who grants Mr. Loring his main premise of the Sover- 
eignty from the beginning of the United States Nation — and 
the Consolidist has a baseless argument without that pre- 
mise — can question the fairness and appositeness of his ar- 
gument. However contradictory of fact and of document, all 
is fairly deducible from his premises. One must deny his pre- 
mises, as before observed, to resist his conclusions, however 
strange they may appear. Nor is his argument weakened by 
superfluity. One topic naturally follows another in logical 
sequence ; and to take any out would break the catenation. In 
such a cause, with such advantages, with such an advocate, 
would one look for any practice of legerdemain in the structure 
of his argument? Should our Author be discovered in such 
a category, no one would imagine he was there from the im- 
pulses of his own heart ; and would not every friend say that 
they were awfully paradoxical writers who could have so misled 
hini ? 

Specially important is it to put limits upon our powerful 
Federal Government, and indispensable to prevent despotism, 
which is bad enough in either of the three forms, but is most 
oppressive and terrible in a Democracy. So that extracts [43]^* 
and [44]^° seem to be particularly judicious, and essential to the 
completeness of his argument, and lead directly to his glowing 
patriotism expressed in [oSji*^, But in noticing those extracts, 
candor required the intimation, that in the after part of his paper, 
Mr. Loring appends this foot-note : — 



108 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

[*] Note. — Since the above views of the rights and powers of the general govern- 
ment, as victor in the war, were reduced to writing, tlie author, upon fuller exami- 
nation, has been led to believe that they are too Hraited ; and tliat, in truth, no legal 
distinction exists between the riglits asid powers incident to victory in a civil war, 
like that under consideration, and tliose incident to conquest in a foreign war. 

Is that a dish in this feast of reason, that will tickle the 
palates of Massachusetts savans ? Is such tergiversation in 
place in this argument ? Some noti sequiturs, though not ex- 
pected in our Anthor, are not inexcusable ; but is it compatible 
with sound reasoning to present in the text considerations im- 
portant as those referred to, powerfully affecting the entire 
argument, and then wipe them out with a little foot-note a long 
way otr, without injury either to sense or conclusion ? It is 
a slight lapse, that if Mr. Loring's readers overlook, will insure 
like generosity for even greater faults in a stranger ; a point of 
some moment to one writing for the Athenians of America. 

But however generous may be Mr. Loring's other readers, it 
is too costly a luxury for me to indulge, in my straitened cir- 
cumstances. Every advantage must be held tenaciously ; and 
each word in [43] ^^ and [44]^^ except " rebellion " in the first 
line of the latter, and " sole judge," (near its close, which was 
before qualified,) fits my side of the argument too exactly to let 
them slide off thus easily, and with no equivalent to supply 
their place. 

This experienced counsellor undertands full well the use of 
words. He has not misused them, and means precisely what he 
says, that " the powers of the United States" — the body politic 
of the entire People, which Mr. L. argues has the Sovereignty, 
though often it gets into the Government — " are by no means 
as unlimited as they might be." For as we saw under the pre- 
ceding head, the truth that the Government is an Agency, is 
distinctly recognized ; and our Author is too learned in the law 
to doubt that an Agent always is limited to the letter of his 

* This paragraph must go numberless; for this important note is not in the pamphlet 
edition. And its withdrawal is even more perplexing than was its introduction. Am I to 
miderstand, that while consideration, supposed to be mature, caused Mr. L. to wipe out by 
the note, his important paragraphs [43]<'-* and [44]**5; further examination causes doubts of 
the wisdom of the note, and that he readopts the Constitutional hmits'? At all events, the 
withdrawal from the pamphlet edition confirms my judgment in having placed it under this 
caption, where it had its number, which the more mature consideration of the pamphlet edi- 
tion compels me to strike out. But it is very certain that " Paradoxical writers mislead Mr. 
Loring," one way or the other. Either he never should have put in that note; or if inserted 
it should have been kept there. Probablj' Mr. Loring is undecided for want of proper au- 
thorities; for they are very weak as elsewhere observed, upon the collateral subjects of a 
Nation's conquest of itself, ami of a whale's putting itself into its own stomach. 



§ 30.] Paradoxical Writers mislead Mr. Loring. 109 

authority. So that any dolt can see the importance of the ad- 
missions in the text to my case, if truthful, as I affirm them to 
be ; and I would be a greater dolt not to hold to them until some 
equivalent is rendered. Light upon the subject, however, is 
what we all want, and Mr. Loring having evidently made a 
•' fuller examination " than myself, I will consent that if by com- 
petent authorities he will prove the truth of his note, according 
to his main premise, the Sovereignty of the Nation of the 
United States, he may not only wipe out those paragraphs, but 
our whole Governmental system ; for the fathers failed to estab- 
lish what they intended, and what we ought to desire. 

But while waiting for that light which may be some time in 
dawning, I will take the liberty of also applying that well de- 
vised note to my side of the argument ; not only as being per- 
fectly sound, as were also the limitations he now endeavors to 
destroy, but as being the strongest admission against his hypoth- 
esis of National Sovereignty with which he has favored me.^ 
When he imagined the General Government to be the " victor 
in the war " ^jer se, instead of these sovereign States who by 
their Governmental Agency had acquired the rights of conquest, 
he correctly found limits to those rights in the Constitution. 
And now, as " in truth no legal distinction exists between the 
rights and powers incident to victory in a civil war, like that 
mider consideration^ and those incident to conquest in ^foreign 
war," and the rights having undoubtedly been acquired by the 
General Government ; does it not follow that the rights could 
not have been acquired for the Government ^^er se, but for some 
other party, its superior? Where then is the Sovereignty of that 
Government ? 

Had Mr. Loring followed his own better judgment, no such 
sophism as that of a Nation conquering itself; or, that subduing 
a rebellion could give rights of conquest, would have found 
place in his argument. Nor could he unbiased, have ever made 
the palpable contradictions with our authoritative documents, 
that are neither few nor trivial. Evidently, that school of wise- 

1 It is true, that in my last note I considered it due to our Author to admit, that more mature 
consideration caused the extinction of that note. But such vacillation in him is hardly 
credible ; and the previous hypothesis that some printer's devil was bad enough to steal it, 
seems most reasonable. But the intent of our Author being to have that note here, the weighty 
argument in the text is not weakened by the mere absence of that note; for my main pre- 
mises there are the intent and sound judgment of our Author, which must be called in ques- 
tion to inviilidate my argument. I therefore feel at liberty to preserve for posterity the 
argument in the text precisely as it would have been could I have been allowed to afHx a 
number to that note. 



110 Reply to Mr. Lormg upon " Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

acres who contemn as vain the philosophy which pretends to any 
difference in man's nature as an individual, as a family, as a 
State ; the geniuses who simplify the deep mysteries of political 
science — made more mysterious by these " darkeners of counsel 
by words without knowledge " — by throwing aside such super- 
fluities as any distinctions in the nature of Nations, States, wars, 
etc., and who can thus bring all sorts of things to one and the 
same result ; — these are the pretended philosophers that have 
somewhat misled our Author ; and it could hardly be esteemed 
indecorous to style such contradictors of International Law, of 
our fundamental documents, and of common sense, paradox- 
ical.^ 

1 As a paragon of excellence in the pupil, a model application of their principles to prac- 
tice, that even eminent paradoxical writers might in vain attempt to surjiass or to equal, we 
oflfer another extract from No. 2: — 

[yss] " In Tiew, therefore, of the facts, and of the general principles to be applied to them, it seems 
10 follow, as of logical necessity, that (however the powers of the Government of the United States 
might be supposed to be otherwise limited by the Constitution, in the carrying on of the war and in 
prescribing conditions of peace and restoration) whatever terms are demanded by the exigency, in order 
to make such peace and restoration entire and permanent, must be within the scope of those powers ; 
and that some such terms or conditions are imperatively demanded in the present case." 

Mr. Loring is far too modest. It not only " seems to follow," but it does follow " as of 
logical necessit}-." To understand the full force of that " therefore," it is necessaiy to state 
that the facts are well presented; and as to the " general principles," — why, the reader 
may apply them generally at his own liking, for our Author assumes no superiority by offer- 
ing to consideration what every reader is supposed to understand equally with himself. This 
prevents supertluity, and any heedless interruption in the chain of the argument. 

These are some of the facts'. He shows what " is undeniable," that the South still be- 
lieve themselves to be right as to the doctrine of Secession ; and that in spite of the flood-tide 
of light shed upon them by our Northern luminaries, — what a brilliant aurora borealis; 
and the light of one about equal to the other! they, the most benighted of black-hearted 
rebels and traitors, will not see how that, because they are traitors and rebels, we have got 
over them the rights of conquest ! Was there ever audacious treason or rebellion before 
this? Yet " such are unquestionably the temper, the fl'elings, the sentiments, and opinions 
of the great majority of Southern men and women at this time, and of nearly all their rec- 
ognized leaders." And he shows how " this seeming restoration is but an outward show; " 
and yet not that they are " less worthy of trust than other men;" but conceives it is be- 
cause " it is in the nature of man, that he cannot long submit in silence and quiet under the 
sense of such accumulated wrong and injustice." Whereas it seems to me the difhculty 
lies in their folly in not being willing to be rebels, and at the same time admit our rights of 
conquest. Then Mr. Loring seeks some security, and strange to say, finds none at all in 
that oath of allegiance. Why, it ought to be sufHcient to bind the very devil himself, for 
its equal was never before concocted. Such are " the facts" which establish that " there- 
fore; " and the following is its natural result: — 

" Upon what reason or principle, then, is this doctrine denied, and an attempt made to show that 
the Constitution does interpose to limit those powers and to prevent the imposition of any such terms ? 

" The main argument, if argument it may be called, seems to consist in the formula above cited; 
namely, that the right of the Government to subdue the rebellion, being a constitutional right, could 
be exercised only " within the limits of the powers conferred by the Constitution ; " that those powers 
being confined to the restoration and re-establishment of the authority of the Constitution and the laws 
in the rebellious States, were exhausted when such restoration and establishment were accomplished, 
and the people of those States therefore become entitled to immediate restoration of all their former 
political powers and privileges in the Union ; and therefore that an attempt to impose upon them any 
terms or conditions of such restoration is an usurpation, having no other foundation than the assumed 



§ 30.] Paradoxical Writers mislead 3Ir. Lorlng. Ill 

Yet that Mr. Loring has good acquaintance, with another une- 
quivocal school holding tenets in unison with these elements 
of our compound system, is abundantly evident from the many 
excellent paragraphs he supplies to correct his errors of theory 
into which he has been inadvertently led. Merely a glance at 
any one of a dozen passages will show that — 

§ 31. Mr. Loring intimates the true Means of Relief, a 
Resort to Principles. 

The entire hypothesis for which Mr. Loring so skilfully con- 
tends, rests upon the important, indispensable idea, that our Gov- 
ernmental system, whatever it be, is grounded upon something 
besides itself, and not contained in our fundamental documents. 
Upon this truth, reasonably assumed, rests his main premise of 
the Nationality of the United States preexistent to the States ; 
which he believes with the facts substantiates the positive exist- 
ence of that Nation, although no record shows its creation. If 
it have proper, legitimate existence, it must be in accord with 
the Law of Nations ; the recognized abstract from that Code to 
which our fathers appealed in our Declaration of Independence, 
" the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Therefore, early 
in his paper Mr. Loring remarks: — 

[60^*^] The local allegiance, however, of the inhabitants of each colony, before clue 
to the Crown, was declared to be transferred, not to the central national Govern- 
right of the conqueror to dictate terms of peace, and which right, it is alleged, pertains to conquest in a 
foreign war only, and not to one in a civil war. And no little dust has been thrown into the eyes of the 
public, by efforts to make it appear that Congress, in undertaliing to impose any terms or conditions 
of restoration, are usurping, and assuming to act upon, the rights and powers of conquerors in a 
foreign war." 

Is not that logically deduced, and " the main argument " well demolished? But are they 
not mcfidly paradoxical writers that have got the mastery of our Author — or he of them — 
that he, a thorough State-rights Democrat, and who discovered those important limits, 
[43] »* and [44] 85, should now in this way argue in behalf of unlimited powers? and they, 
as we shall find, not in the entire Government, but in Congress. Most appropriately for 
this place Mr. Loring continues : — 

" It must be apparent to every reader, that this style of reasoning is founded upon an entire begging 
of the whole question : first, in assuming that the rebels, upon such submission, became immediately 
and unconditionally entitled to enjoyment of their former powers and privileges in the Union, — when 
the main question at issue is whether they do become so ; and, secondly, in assuming that the right 
of the conqueror in war to dictate terms of peace is confined exclusively to foreign war, and does not 
extend to civil war, — which is also one of the material questions to be decided. 

" In reference to the first of these questions, it is believed that no further argument can be needed to 
prove that the right of the Government to subdue the rebellion, and restore the authority of the Con- 
stitution and the laws in the rebellious States, involves, by an inevitable logical necessity, the right to 
impose upon the people of those States such terms and conditions as shall make such restoration secure 
and permanent, or to hold them under its military authority until it shall have become so." 

Not a word should be added except to express this writer's thanks to that writer for fitting 
a blocking so exactly and appropriately. 



112 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction." [T. 2. 

ment thus established, but to the colony itself, or, in the language of a resolution 
adopted by the Congress, " to the laws of tlie colony." The relations of individu- 
als to the national Government were nowhere defined, but left to construction upon 
the nature of this union of the colonies or States in a national sovereignty. 

What was not "defined," as few things were in either State 
or Federal Constitutions, (Mr. L. here refers to the Constitution 
of Massachusetts, as will be seen by reference to the preceding 
paragraph [14]^'^) was " left to construction " ; and constant 
reference is made to something back of the Constitution, or of 
the Articles of Confederation, as when our Author says : — 

[6131] It may seem needless to discuss the point further, as the express lan- 
guage of the provisions of the Constitution seems to make it so clear. It may be 
added, however, that any other construction, considering this right of suffrage to be 
wholly personal as that of a citizen of the United States only, and not dependent 
upon the relations of his State to the Union, would involve, as a necessary conse- 
quence, the right of the inhabitants of a State in actual rebellion to elect and send 
representatives to Congress, so long as they remained without arrest or conviction 
for the crime of treason by due course of law ; for, until such arrest or conviction, 
no civil right can be accounted lost or forfeited. 

Such being believed to be the principles of construction applicable to the Consti- 
tution, we have next to consider the effect of the rebellion upon the relations of the 
people of the State to the Union, in reference to their right of suffrage as citizens 
of the United States, and to representation in tlie national Government. 

' " The principles of construction applicable to the Constitu- 
tion," imply the application to that instrument of some rule ex- 
trinsic of itself, to ascertain its meaning; for no document of 
that sort, at all events, runs all the way back to first principles, 
but assuming many things for granted, resort must be made to 
them for the after interpretation of the instrument. Accordingly*, 
these views are presented : — 

[62'''] It is maintained by some that tliey were never lost, but continued in full 
force during the rebellion, — that is the doctrine of the minority of the " Commit- 
tee on Reconstruction ; " but, if the above views be sound, it is obviously errone- 
ous, and needs no further answer. Others hold that although these rights were 
suspended or in abeyance during the rebellion, and until peace was effectually se- 
cured by the exercise of mihtary power, yet that, when that was attained, the in- 
habitants of those States were instantly re-instated in all their previous rights and 
privileges, and, upon re-organizing their State Governments so as to bring them 
within the requisitions of tlie Constitution, the}'^ became entitled to representation 
and participation in the administration of the national Government. And this, 
perhaps, is the general belief of those who advocate the immediate recognition of 
those rights. 

On the other hand, it is maintained that civil and political rights and privileges 
under the Constitution, being thus forfeited or lost by the voluntary, flagrant 
treason of the inhabitants of those States, can only be restored by the permission 
and authority of that constitutional power against which they rebelled, and by 
which they have been subdued. 

The appropriate complaint in [52]^' follows of course. The 



§ 31.] Mr. Loring intimates Relief in a Resort to Principles. 113 

necessity of true construction is brought out in the conclusion 
of [57] 103 . from which the learned jurist logically deduces [46]''^, 
the right of war; and quoting Vattel, etc., [39]'^, he exhibits in 
[47]9i and [48]^^^ the rights that have accrued to the United 
States as the result of the war ; and in [43]^-^ [44]^^, finds lim- 
its to those rights of conquest, which, of course, are governed by 
the law applicable. After a lengthy discussion, mostly yet un- 
quoted, of the rights of the Federal Government, he thus con- 
cludes that (his fourth) division : — 

[63^1] Upon the principles of public law, therefore, applicable, to this extent, to 
civil as well as to foreign war, as founded in the absolute necessity of the case, the 
General Government has the sole power and the right to determine when tiie con- 
flict has ceased, and upon what terms and conditions, consistent with the objects of 
the war, the inhabitants of the States in rebellion shall be restored to political 
equality as States in the Union. 

These " principles of public law" are what we want to decide 
whether these Peoples, in spite of themselves, have been subjected 
to the Federal authority,^ so that " the General Government has 
the sole power and the right to determine " all these important 
points involved in Reconstruction. But Mr. Loring throws 
aside one of the first of those principles, the variation in the na- 
ture of the State according as the soul, the Sovereignty, is pos- 
sessed, recognizing no difference between this Nation of the 
United States and other nations. But the truth that we actually 
have acquired the rights of conquest, is too apparent, and accords 
too well with his heart, however disagreeable to his head, to be 
'overlooked. This compels to the further confusion of princi- 
ples, demolishing all differences between a foreign and a civil 
war. So that at the close of the last extract, the foot-note [*]io8 
finds its proper place. 

From thence, though vinder another division, we have the 
declaration in [55] i^^, with regard to which it may be further ob- 
served, that if " the General Government " be possessed of the 
Sovereignty, it must have the ultimate decision of every part 
of the subject of Reconstruction, " as matter of absolute and 
inevitable necessity." But here comes in the positive assertion, 

1 They will be found equally useful for that, as for determining our rights over the 
" rebels," as Mr. Loring proposes in No. 2: — 

[1797] " Again, the rule applies to the case of a civil war with much greater reason, from the con- 
sideiation, that in such a war, where the legitimate Government has succeeded in subduing an un- 
righteous rebellion, the conquered are malefactors, guilty of the highest crime known in civilized 
society, and the terms of whose pardon, therefore, upon all the principles and analogies of law, rest of 
right in the sense of justice and humanity of the Government whose authority they have spurned, and. 
whose laws they have outraged." 
8 



114 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'^ [T. 2. 

italicized in [51]'j^ that " The People of the United States was the 
grantor,^'' which is too natural and consonant with popular no- 
tions to be questioned ; and the query may be raised, whether 
the original grantor, could we agree who it is, has not something 
to do about this ultimate right. This is another illustration of 
the confounding of the People and the Government, — the mere 
agency of the People, —which pervades the argument. 

Believing that this Federal Government of ours, powerful as 
it has been proved to be, needs to be kept strictly within the 
letter of its authority, as Mr. L. intimates [43]^5 ^nd [44]46, it 
follows that " as the Constitution contains no express provisions 
determining the status of the inhabitants of a State .... after 
subjugation, or submission to the authority of the General Gov- 
ernment, such restoration is necessarily one of construction or 
implied right or power to be settled upon general princi- 
ples" [55]"-^. To those "general principles" then, must resort 
be had, and we need to know what they are. And although in 
Mr. Loring's estimate the decision is foregone as to who must 
apply those principles ; it will probably be found that that point 
needs quite as much consideration, as that of the practical ap- 
plication of the principles to reconstruction. 

But yei once again Mr. Loring's heart asserts supremacy over 
his head; for next following [55] '''^j we have the judicious 
thoughts of [56]^"'^ which, with the reasonable limitations of law 
and principles so justly appreciated by our Author, we can adopt 
in all their length and breadth. Were his principles only suffi- 
cient to govern his head, he w^ould soon discover the advantage 
of Sovereignty in the States instead of the Nation ; and his 
heart and State rights would have a grand triumph. 

That the principles are all-sufficient, were tlit;y duly appre- 
hended, and we had wit to apply them, is quite certain; for in 
[33]^^ his very next paragraph, our jurist declares that "the na- 
ture of the political relations of the several States to the United 
States, is obviously pure matter of law." And he repeats in the 
next paragraph [49]^^ — "all these questions being obviously 
matter of legal right, — of law purely, — " etc. Would it be 
unreasonable to expect a lawyer to give us some of this law ? 
But this lawyer seems to think we are all lawyers, and he will 
volunteer no such common-place trash, and runs off in [50]'^* 
upon " The next proposition," which is nothing less than to de- 
molish State rights, which he does effectually in [51]^*^, [35]'''', and 



§ 31.J Mr. Loring intimates Relief in a Resort to Principles. 115 

[o6]"i, according to his law and principles; which bring him in 
[37]'2, to " another and broader view," " in the light of the great 
principles upon which the Constitution was founded." 

But, shocking to say, here our Author's head has overpower- 
ing sway ; for where we had been led to expect a high-toned 
enunciation of principles that ^^ would be worth living under and 
dying for," (see conclusion of [36]'2) we are treated to that un- 
fortunate averment in [4]ii, which respect for and confidence in 
our Author would not permit to be construed according to its 
natural meaning. It is not possible that this patriotic Citizen, 
earnest philanthropist, firm upholder of all true law, Divine or 
human, could side with tyrants and revolutionists, in seeking an 
expedient destructive of all law, — of the very foundations of 
society. Yet if it have any power, it implies that either for a 
tyrant who possesses a Government, or revolutionists who seek 
to establish one, there is a law higher than " domestic expedi- 
ency," — which must mean that particular State. " The life of 
the Nation," which he regards the Government, is the summum 
bonum, for the attainment of which no law is to stand in the 
way. The State is nothing ; the Government everything. He 
could hardly mean this, and yet his views following, and conclud- 
ing his paper, [38]'^, [67Y'% [59Jio«, jGO]"!, and [9f% flow naturally 
from this hypothesis, and therefore should be utterly repudiated. 

But in spite of the paradoxical writers, it is quite evident that 
our Author must have resorted much and often to a very differ- 
ent school,^ to have been able to supply the many excellent para- 
graphs that appear far more naturally and appropriately placed 
in my argument than his own ; for do not his arguments support 
my premises, though to his own diametrically opposed ? It is 
the school he frequently alludes to as " the public law," " Law 
of Nations," " principles of political science," etc., of which 

1 The extent of research is more evident from No. 2. I need to cite but a single para- 
graph : — 

[ V 11-] " Now, nothing in political science or language, and nothing indeed in common conversation, 
is better defined or more universally recognized than the meaning of the term "executive " as applied 
to government. Every one knows that it is descriptive of the head of the civil Government, who exe- 
cutes the laws, as di.stinguished trom the legislature which enacts them, and the judiciary which applies 
them ; and that it designates an exclusively civil power for the execution of civil laws. It is equally 
clear and universally known, that militanj offirers form no part of the government, hut are its instru- 
ments only for especial purposes, and are never termed " the Executive " nor " executive officers ; " and 
that military authority is no constituent part of the Government, hut merely an agency by which it 
discharges certain of its duties or functions. The term " executive "' is a coiTelative term, always used 
in correlation to " judicial " and " legislative," and never as having any reference to military author- 
ity. All dictionaries and encyclopsedias, as well as common usage, are perfectly co-incident on thia 
point 



116 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction ." [T. 2. 

Grotius was founder. Contrary, too, to the paradoxical writers, 
who ought not to be called a school^ for they are not agreed 
upon any point except opposition to the truth, that school is 
in perfect concord with our fundamental documents; so that 
Mr. Loring and nearly all these Citizens, who are genuine State- 
rights Democrats, and would desire to continue unimpaired to 
our children's children the system of Federal Republican De- 
mocracy bequeathed to us by the fathers, will be its friends and 
advocates. And here let us briefly consider that — 

§ 32. The Grotian School supplies the Union that we 

WANT. 

There are but two kinds of Union for States, one Federal, 
the other Consolidated. Nor is any mixture of them possible. 
It is immaterial that Madison and most northern teachers affirm 
our system to be " partly Federal, partly National," or consoli- 
dated. Not only is it false, but absurd, — worse than paradox- 
ical. As argued in my Introductory Compend, or " Citizenship, 
Sovereignty," where this is somewhat considered. Sovereignty 
cannot be partly in a People for one purpose, partly in another 
People for another purpose. A Government must be wholly 
Federal, or wholly Consolidated. 

That Mr. Loring himself is opposed to actual Consolidation, 
is apparent from extracts [23]55, [24]^', \pY\ [71]i3o, etc., and in 
conversation is he still more emphatic in its repudiation. No 
doubt that with Webster in his reply to Hayne, he disclaims 
"odious," "obnoxious consolidation," and would seek merely 
"consolidation of the Union,''' — not of the States themselves, but 
of the Union of the States. And this is highest wisdom. For as 
Sovereignty is the soul of these States, the source of power 
operating this compound machinery of State and Federal Gov- 
ernments; so Union may well be compared to the air in which 
these bodies politic of the States, and the body politic of the 
States united, live, and move, and have their being. Taken out 
of that air, they die. More and more heartily as we study the 
interesting subject, will the grand truth so eloquently uttered by 
the great Expounder — " Liberty and Union, now and forever, 
one and inseparable " — find response from every true Amer- 
ican. 

But that air must be of proper Union — combining gases, join- 
ing States. A simple gas would suffocate the body politic ; a 



§ 32.] The Grotian School supplies the Union that toe ivant. 117 

single Nation, as Montesquieu says, would be "destroyed by an 
internal imperfection." Proper air, it is true, cannot be generated 
but hy ming'liirg' different gases; on the other hand, a perfect 
union is only created by joining- together different bodies. Gases 
from their nature when joined, become at once commingled ; 
not so is the nature of States in true Union, which are still per- 
fect and distinct, however closely united. It is not philosophic 
to consider air a union of gases, for it is a mixture. The com- 
ponent parts when brought together become indistinguishable. 
But we speak of body and soul as united; husband and wife as 
united ; and so in Federal Union, States are joined, not commin- 
gled. The latter is not Union, but Consolidation, which has 
ever been our strong abhorrence, as God grant it may continue 
to be. And even air itself is only made efficacious for man's 
benefit, as the gases are dissevered ; oxygen being absorbed 
and nitrogen passed off. 

But Mr. Loring is unwilling to trust Union as the principle 
of our Nation's life; and evidently impressed with Pufendorf's 
declaration, that of the two bands of' society command is much 
more efficacious than covenant, he will have a Right of Com- 
mand, complete Sovereignty, in the Nation of the United States. 
That inevitably brings Consolidation, which Mr. Loring himself 
abhors. Nor is there any middle ground between genuine Fed- 
eralism and absolute Consolidation. 

But while, as we have seen, the appliers of " The Laws of 
Nature and of Nature's God " to the conduct of State affairs, — 
the founders of the modern code known as International Law, — 
have not always fully apprehended the principles they had de- 
rived from nature and the Bible ; the more the subject is studied, 
the more perfect will be found the applicability of those princi- 
ples to our own case, — the stronger will be found our system 
based upon political science, and that immutable Divine Code. 
Such an example as this of ours, and these tremendous events 
through which we are passing, were needed to well display the 
perfections of political science ; and its acme of glory thus far 
in human history will be reached, in the perfect solution it 
affords of the deep complications in which ignorance of true 
principles, and paradoxical writers have involved us. Beyond 
a doubt, a thorough examination of political science will demon- 
strate that — 



118 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T, 2. 

§ 33. A Theory of a Federal Republic would strengthen 
Mr. Loring's Nation. 

It is evident that a comparison of the principles of political sci- 
ence herein before presented, regarding State organization, State 
Sovereignty, and Union in a Federal Republic ; their comparison 
with our system, will show no obstacle, at all events, to om* being 
considered a genuine specimen of Federal Republican Democracy. 
If they do thus apply, then, unless the -principles may be shifted 
at will from one form of Government to any other, our system 
must be according to that specific form, and none other. That 
principles must be thus specifically applicable, is self-evident, if 
there be any such branch of knowledge as the Science of Politics. 
For the main object of any science, is to ascertain the constituent 
elements of its subject ; and the art of a subject, is their appli- 
cation to practice. There can be no certain practice, no true art, 
unless the subject have its specific principles, which applied thus 
and so always bring uniform results. So that if our system may 
properly be styled Federal Republican Democracy — and where 
is the man who will question that? it must be that form of Gov- 
ernment, and nothing else. 

But to maintain this hypothesis, we have to assume that 
Politics is a Science, which many sensible, practical statesmen 
deny. So that, as stated in the beginning, we need not rely upon 
the science of politics, but fall back upon our fundamental doc- 
uments and insignia, which, as we have already discovered, and 
will presently see further, proclaim our system to be a Federal 
Union of free and independent States. 

Not only does this appear probable, if not positively certain, 
from those documents and from political science ; but, also. Fed- 
eral Republican Democracy is exactly what we want. Whether 
desirable or not under other circumstances, it is indispensable in 
our present imbroglio. As we have seen, the doctrine of State 
Sovereignty, and nothing besides, can give us the rights of con- 
quest, and thus aids to strengthen our National Union, and to sim- 
plify complications. It simplifies, because the rights of conquest 
take precedence of the rights of compact — indeed the rights of 
compact were by war itself totally dissolved ; — and the seceded 
States thus becoming the |)roperty of the other States, and they 
having already delegated to Congress the entire " management 
of the territory and other property of the United States," the 



§ 33.] A Theory of a Federal Repuhlie ivould aid Mr. Loring. 119 

emergency is already provided for, sufficient for temporary pur- 
poses. Then, it will strengthen our Union against any similar 
attempt by secession and war to break it up, to have this exam- 
ple of the loss of State Sovereignty, as a punishment that will 
be sure to follow covenant-breaking States. 

Costly as has been this war — costly in money and in the in- 
finitely more precious blood shed on both sides for the mainte- 
nance, as each party honestly believed, of the genuine principles 
of our Governments, — all this blood and treasure has been well 
sacrificed, so that we learn the strength, the source of the strength, 
of Federal Republican Democracy. 

Our Union being Federal — one by compact — the States could 
secede from it as they had acceded, and as the eleven States in 
1788—9 seceded from the old Union, leaving North Carolina and 
Rhode Island the sole members of that body politic. But we 
rightfully denied the right of eleven States in our day, to do 
what they could do according to political science ; for no ade- 
quate necessity now justified this act, and the rupture did us 
injury. But they did secede and broke up the Union, not de 
jure, but de facto ; and it is with facts we have to deal. They 
then established a rival Confederacy within the borders of our 
National Union, delegating to it among others the rights of 
war. We were disputing their right to do this, as well as to 
secede ; they affirming that as free and independent States, 
they had an imprescriptible right to revoke their compact; and 
taking advantage of the deception as to supplying Southern 
forts, the Confederates began by force of arms to dispossess these 
Sovereignties at Fort Sumter of their joint and equal rights in 
that part of our National Union. The gauge of battle being 
accepted, the war to which they resorted as arbitrator to deter- 
mine both the right of Secession and the fact of its accomplish- 
ment, has resulted, under Providence, not merely in establishing 
our rights before possessed by compact, but in giving us rights 
of conquest. This result, wholly difierent from that anticipated 
by Congress, as we have seen, some of the best friends of Union 
would wholly repudiate ; this grand event of centuries, would 
they throw away as the apple of discord ; whereas it is, and is 
to be reckoned, the priceless benefit of the contest, and worth 
its cost. 

But to consider this emergency adequately provided for in the 
delegation of power to manage the conquered States as " terri- 



120 Reply to Mr. Loring upon ^^ Beconsti-uction.'' [T. 2. 

tory and other property," would be a dangerous stretch of the 
Constitution. If ever the 10th amendment were applicable, it 
is in a case like this, when nolens volens, and wholly unantici- 
pated, these twenty-five States have had thrust upon them the 
rights of conquest of eleven of their late Confederates. For so 
august an event as restoring to them their lost Sovereignty, 
surely should these States come together in Convention by their 
Delegates chosen for the remarkable occasion. We shall find 
ultimately, as before observed, that our Union being broken de 
facto but not de jure, has to be reconstructed de facto ; and a 
true Federal Republic cannot exist except between free and in- 
dependent States. So that the first step in reconstruction of the 
Union, will be to restore to the conquered States their lost 
Sovereignty; and it should be an event to be remembered for 
all time. 

For this we may not be prepared for ten or twenty years. But 
our every energy ought to be given to the preparation ; for our 
system being emphatically one of self-government, we need to 
be rid of the present anomalous condition, at the earliest day of 
safety. That will come when, in the North and in the South, 
principles shall have been sufficiently examined to make us see 
the infamy of breaking such a covenant, for which the loss of 
Sovereignly is hardly an adequate punishment. Then will we 
come together like brothers, and be prepared, upon the basis of 
State Sovereignty, to reconstruct our National Union, which 
will in all probability have continuance for centuries, if not for 
all time. 

The work of reconstruction is doubtless complicated in a 
Federal Republic; much more so than in a single Republic. Yet 
the difficulties and complications result in large measure from 
our ignorance ; and its superior strength abundantly compen- 
sates for the extra trouble of studying the principles of Federal 
Union, and learning its dignity and superiority over all other 
forms and means of Government. It is not like ordinary Free 
States, the creature of compact between individuals; but it has 
the grandeur and strength of covenant obligations between the 
most perfect of moral persons; these Sovereign, Free, and Inde- 
pendent States. 

Nor would we be safe in our freedom and independence, if as 
a consolidated State or Nation, the body politic of the United 
States possessed the Sovereignty. Upon this point the wise 
Montesquieu wrote thus in his " Spirit of Laws : " — 



§ 33.] A Tlieory of a Federal Republic would aid Mr. Loving. 121 

If a Republic is small, it is destroyed by a foreign force ; if it be large, it is de- 
stroyed by an internal imperfection. To this twofold inconvenience, both Democra- 
cies and Aristocracies are equally liable, and that whether they be good or bad. 
The evil is in the very thing itself, and no form can redress it. It is therefore 
very probable that mankind would have been at length obliged to live constantly 
under the Government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of Consti- 
tution that has all the internal advantages of a Republican, together with the ex- 
ternal force of a Monarchial Government ; I mean a Confederate Republic. 

Yet, tiotwithstanding this wisdom, — 

§ 34. Mr. Loring denies the Possibility of our being a 
Federal Republic. 

Our constant endeavor has been to stick to facts and prin- 
ciples regardless of co-nsequences. Nor is here any departure 
therefrom. For Mr. Loring will not deny, that the Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts, and each one of these other States, 
answers to one of Montesquieu's Republics. . If so, they ought 
to be able to unite in a Confederacy. Yet does not Mr. Loring 
destroy all possibility of our being a Federal ^e\>nhY\c, by affirm- 
ing the National existence of the body politic of the United 
States antecedent to the States ? 

If from the beginning we have existed as " one People," the 
Nation of the United States possessing Sovereignty, which, as 
we have seen, is indivisible ; if it had external Sovereignty, it 
must have had internal also, whether exercised or not. Most 
assuredly, no evidence exists in this land of written law, that the 
United States have ever granted away their Sovereignty, or that 
they have been subjected to any foreign power ; so that if that 
body politic ever possessed the Right of Command, it must 
have it yet. Such a Nation could never become a Federal Re- 
public, until its Sovereignty was destroyed by division to several 
States ; and there is no evidence to that effect. So that if Mr. 
Loring be right, we cannot possibly be a Federal Republic; and 
therefore it is a question of first magnitude, as considered § 16, 
whether the States or Union preexisted. 

But is not the admission Mr. Loring has made repeatedly, 
that these States actually formed a Confederacy in 1781, a little 
awkward for the maintenance of his Sovereignty in the Nation 
of the United States ? He has slipped over the difficulty skil- 
fully ; yet the inference is quite natural, that if they could and 
did form one Confederacy, in spite of the Sovereignty of the 
United States, they might have done so again. 



122 Reply to 3fr. Loving upon " Reeonstriiction.'' [T. 2. 

We shall soon consider the subject, that The Constitution did 
not change the Nature of our Union ; and here it is sufficient to 
observe, that as the previous Government was established be- 
tween the States, so was the present one, as the 7th article de- 
clares. And were I at liberty to use principles of political sci- 
ence, I could argue that it must therefore be of the same nature. 
But, under the circumstances it is sufficient to bring forward 
the documents and rest upon the defensive. Our first Govern- 
ment was undeniably a Federal Republic ; and let them who 
affirm a change, prove when and how it was made, and exhibit 
the letter of authority. 

The opinions, too, of afi our statesmen ought to be of some 
account, against even Mr. Loring's hypothesis and positive dec- 
larations. They ought not to be conclusive ; for in the aggre- 
gate they are only individual opinions, which are not authority 
against law^ and fact. But every prominent statesman and jurist' 
from Washington and Hamilton to ovir day, having styled our 
Union and central Government Federal ; and it being possible, 
according to Mr. Loring's own admissions, that even the present 
Government mig^ht be Federal, surely it behooves him to have 
some considerable authorities to prove them wholly wrong. It is 
a more diflieult task than mine, undertaking to prove Madison 
and others partially in error in styling our Government partly 
Federal and partly National. For they contradict the motto of 
the United States, which declares without qualification, that we 
are one out of many — not partly so. It is also contrary to the 
Constitution of Massachusetts, and the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, which have nothing partly in their composition. Per- 
ception of this truth might be, and probably is the reason why — 

§ 35. Mr. Loring consistently affirms Consolidation 
FROM THE Beginning. 

Denying that those principles relating to a Confederacy have 

any application to our present system, Mr. Loring represents 

the Nation of the United States to have had existence from the 

beginning. This has been pretty well substantiated in §§ 16-19. 

But he has also said concerning the origin of his Nation of the 

United States : — 

[64^] And it was not till after thus uniting themselves as one people, engaged in 
a common cause, that they, in conformity with the recommendation of the Congress, 
proceeded in their respective jurisdictions to make provisions for local govern- 
ments for the management of their domestic concerns, which their separation from 



§ 35.] Mr. Loring affirms Consolidation from the Beginning. 123. 

the motlier Government and the exigencies of the times made necessary. So tliat 
the formation of a national Government, revolutionary indeed and witli Hmited in- 
ternal powers, but none the less national, acting as the agent, and in the name and 
with the consent, of tlie inhabitants of the whole territory embraced within the 
limits of the colonies, had been established by the union in one body of delegates 
representing them, and was in actual ope'ration before the adoption of the local gov- 
ernments, called State governments, as they have since existed ; and had itself 
recommended their formation as necessary means of accomplishing the purposes of 
its creation, — very significant facts, surely, in illustration of the true relations of 
the States to the General Government in their subsequent history. 

Concerning the Nation under the Confederation he also ob- 
serves : — 

[65- 'J Now, up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the people of tiie 
several States had, as above sliown, become one people or nation, so far as their ex- 
ternal natioiial sovereignty was concerned, the government of which resided in the 
general Congress ; each of the States possessing the right of sending delegates to 
that Congress, and the right to one vote in its deliberations and decisions. But 
each remained at the same time supreme and independent in its internal sov- 
ereignty, excepting in so far as the Articles of Confederation imposed limits there- 
upon, — which limits were few, but of essential importance in providing for the 
necessities of internal commerce and equality of rights between the respective in- 
habitants of the different States. 

The perfect Nationality and the Sovereignty of the United 
States under the Constitution is thus set forth : — 

[661'-'] As, however, it [the Constitution] far transcended any mere alteration or 
amendment of the Articles of Confederation, — being in fact the substitution of " a 
firm national government" over the whole people of the United States, in place of 
a league of the States, — it was clearly necessary to submit its adoption directly to 
the people, acting in tlieir prinuiry capacity, and not to the State legislatures, as 
mere amendments of the articles might have been and were intended to be ; it 
being obvious that State legislatures could have no authority thus to transfer the 
personal allegiance of their citizens to that of a central government, or part with 
the sovereign power with which they were invested by the people under their sev- 
eral Stiite constitutions. 

The question was of the substitution of a constitulional government in the place of a 
league, and was one, therefore, which the people alone, and not the State legisla- 
tures, could lawfully decide. 

[QT^*] Now, the' Constitution of the United States was a compact entered into 
by the inhabitants of tlie United States for the declared purpose of erecting and 
maintaining " a firm national government," under which they were to be united as 
one people, owing to it individual allegiance as citizens of one nation, and which 
was designed to possess all the powers of internal and externa) sovereignty requi- 
site for securing to them internal and external peace, security, and prosperity ; and 
any construction of it, therefore, which renders it manifestly inoperative to accom- 
plish these fundamental objects, or incapable of resisting internal or external as- 
saults upon its life, cannot be accounted the true or just construction, however 
plausibly its vindication maybe attempted by literal interpretations of particular 
provisions, or specious arguments founded on the omission of others, or any tech- 
nical rules of construction, ordinarily applied to written contracts in private life. 

The nation, as history abundantly shows, existed as a nation be/ore the Constitution 
was formed. The nation created the Constitution, not the Constitution the nation. 



124 Replij to 3Ir. Loring iqwn ''Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

It constructed that national compact for the more perfect definition and distribu- 
tion of tlie various rights and powers which its citizens possessed, or were intended 
to possess, in their individual capacities and in their corporate capacities as States ; 
and to establish a form of government that should be competent to protect them in 
the enjoyment of those rights and the exercise of those powers, and to secure to 
them the blessings of "a firm national government " able to protect tliem at home 
and abroad, and to preserve their national unity from destruction by foes within or 
foes without. And to give an instrument designed for these purposes a meaning 
which renders it not only powerless to accomplish them, but furnisiies to enemies 
within the direct means of undermining and destroying t/ie uutboriti/ of the Govern- 
ment which it was designed to create and preserve, or to construe it as susceptible 
of any such use or abuse, or as wanting in any essential power of self-protection, is 
to sacrifice the substance to the form, and pervert a compact intended for the pres- 
ervation of the nation's life into one for its destruction. 

To discuss these points again, which are here reiterated and 
made more emphatic, if possible, can hardly be profitable. It 
would seem to be attended with some difficulty, either as the 
principles of political science are regarded, or our fundamental 
documents examined, to prove the Sovereignty under the Con- 
stitution, either of the body politic of the United States, or its 
Government, or the whole People of the United States ; and 
even more so under the Articles of Confederation. So that as 
a choice of difficulties, Mr. Loring is doubtless wise in endeav- 
oring to establish a Sovereignty preexistent to either, in the 
Nation of the United States. This he makes his sheet-anchor. 
But as exhibited in the last extracts, he has for his best bower 
that which most northern statesmen make their main reliance 
in a desperate strait, the changes made by the Constitution. 
So that between [So]^^^ and [33]^^, we were favored with that 
remarkable paragraph. [56]^''^, wherein he presents an original 
construction of the Constitution, which we will soon examine. 

To guard effectually against the concentration of powers in 
any one party or Department, was the chief object of the distri- 
bution to coordinate Departments, granting- them, vesting them, 
in these independent Agencies. And here it is worthy of re- 
mark, that — 

§ 36, The Constitution did not change the Nature of our 

Union. 

Mr. Loring differs with most northern authorities, who find it 
necessary with Webster to prove that a great change was wrought 
in our system by the Constitution. He accordingly grounds his 
National Sovereignty upon the preexistence of the United States 
Nation. Still, with all the rest, he believes the change from the 



§ 36.] The Constitution changed not the Nature of our Union. 125 

first to the second Union was fundamental. The extracts [22]^*, 
[23]5^ [24]^ [54]9», [25J59, and [26]go, strongly advocate the 
idea ; and any failure to do so is abundantly supplied by [5y^, 
in which he says, " By the Constitution entire nationality was 
substituted for confederation." But following [54]^^, Mr. Loring 
had also observed : — 

[68-^] But, be this as it may, the fact seems indisputable, that the inhabitants of 
the several States, by the adoption of the Constitution, did voluntarily unite them- 
selves as one people under one supreme national Government invested with all 
necessary powers of national sovereignty, internal and external, — a Government 
which claims from them, as individuals, personal allegiance to its authority, and 
extends over them personal protection ; and which claims also from the political 
bodies or States, of which they were also members, allegiance as such States and 
compliance with the corresponding obligations imposed upon them, while extending 
also over them its protection in the enjoyment of all their political rights as such 
States. 

However "the fact [may] seem indisputable," I deny it square- 
ly. Neither these States nor the United States were ever " under 
one supreme National Government." This is said to be effected 
" by the adoption of the Constitution." But what says the 7th 
article ? — 

* The ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the 
establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. 

It is not over but '■'■ between'''' them that it is established ; and 
if not over the States individually, it cannot be collectively. 
Again must it be repeated, that fear of this which Mr. Loring 
affirms to have been done — that the Government generated by 
the compact of the Constitution, " betiveen the States," has by 
usurpation got oyer them, — was the sole obstacle to its ratifi- 
cation. Have these fears been realized, and State Sovereignty 
destroyed ? 

So far from being " invested with all necessary powers of 
National Sovereignty," it « has only a few of them. They are 
chief, to be sure, as affecting foreign affairs ; but the jealous, 
cautious manner with which the powers as to domestic concerns 
were included, bespeaks the anxiety lest the delegation of such 
as experience had proved indispensable, should absorb those re- 
served. Besides, who " invested " this Government with these 
powers ? The Constitution did not make itself; and the parties 
who by ratification established the Constitution, must have done 
all the vesting. Is there not, then, a power superior to both the 
Constitution and the Government? Where that is, must the 



I 



126 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Beconstruction.'" [T. 2, 

Sovereignty be found ; or rather, it is the Right of Command 
itself, unless something superior can be discovered. 

The authority of the Government, however, though .it cannot 
be over the States, nor the United States, is doubtless extended 
over the individual subjects, whether Citizens or not. They are 
bound to render it obedience, in the concerns committed to it, 
because of the allegiance due to the Sovereign State, which has 
ordained this Government, and subjected to it its faithful liege 
subjects, just as it has to its State Government. Nor is it 
necessary, as we have learned from Pufendorf, notwithstanding 
his misconceptions as to the power of life and death, to imagine 
any change in the nature of our Government in extending au- 
thority over individuals. 

That until 1789 we had no Constitution, no Government, is 
quite a misconception. New York in 1782 proposed to amend 
" the present Constitution of the Continental Government ; " 
" Federal Government,''^ etc. The Annapolis Convention pro- 
posed to "render the Constitution of the Federal Government 
adequate to the exigencies of Union," etc. Congress, 21st Feb- 
ruary, 1787, on motion of Massachusetts, recommended the 
Philadelphia Convention for " revising the Articles of Confedera. 
tion," in order " to render the Federal Constitution adequate to 
the exigencies of Government^ Most of the States in the letters 
of their delegates used similar expressions. 

In considering this question, let us first ascertain the powers 
of the Government under the first Constitution, commonly styled 
the Articles of Confederation. These Mr. Loring enumerates in 
continuation from [16]*^: — 

[691-] By these Articles of Confederation, the government was to consist of a 
single representative body called a " General Congress," in which were vested all 
the powers, executive, legislative, and judicial, granted to the United Startes. Each 
State was to maintain its own delegates ; and, in the determination of questions, 
the voting was to be by States, each State being, entitled to one vote. The agree- 
ment was styled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" between the 
thirteen States named; and this body politic was styled "The United States of 
America." Eacli State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and 
every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the Congress. And 
the nature and objects of the Union were described as a firm league of friendship 
between the States for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and 
their mntual and general welfare ; and the parties bound themselves to assist each 
other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on 
account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or under any other pretence whatever. The 
free citizens of each State were entitled to all privileges and immunities of free 
citizens in the several States. All the general powers of external national sover- 
eignty were vested in the Congress, — the powers of treaty, peace and war, regu- 



§ 36,] The Constitution changed not the Nature of our Union. 127 

lating the coin, creating public debt, building and equipping a navy, determining 
the number of land forces, and of making requisitions upon each State for its quota 
of men and money. The several States were jn-ohibited from receiving or sending 
embassies, or entering into any treaties with foreign powers or with each otlier 
without consent of Congress. • 

Such were the Articles of Confederation, which, as Mr. L. says 
truly in his ensuing paragraph [17]5i, "constituted the People of 
the States, thus united, one Nation." They were much in ad- 
vance of the Helvetic and the Dutch, yet proved quite inadequate 
to the wants of these States, whose Citizens had made progress 
far beyond those of other modern States, by the practice of Gov- 
ernment in local" and Colonial affairs ; and our political knowl- 
edge has always been thoroughly acquired, for it has been gained 
by practice, not theory. This practice, with the civil and relig- 
ious liberty here enjoyed in the main, although Quakers, Bap- 
tists and Catholics have suffered somewhat in some of the 
vaunted spots of freedom, prepared us to desire and to require 
our present Constitution ; the slight changes of which from the 
first attempt, gave us the most perfect frame-work of Govern- 
ment of which we have account. And although the interesting 
and grand truth is not apprehended as it should be, and has not 
the influence it ought to have ; yet without a doubt, the sense 
of individual responsibility to God and country, that most prac- 
tical truth of the Gospel, — operating without observation, and 
despite the power of infidelity, strengthened as that was by our 
warm and close associations with France, — under the direc- 
tion of Infinite Wisdom, led without our understanding the why 
and wherefore, to the bringing of the Federal authority to bear 
directly upon the individuals themselves, instead of through the 
machinery of the State Governments. 

But what are the rights and powers which even Mr. Loring 
considers changed us from " a Confederation " into a National- 
ity ? All the chief powers, of war and peace, coining money, 
making treaties, etc., as he teaches, had been delegated under 
the Articles of Confederation ; and though our Author, with 
more consistency than most of his coadjutors, affirms under that 
system the Nationality and Sovereignty of the United States; 
yet he claims it to have been perfected by the new Constitution. 
The chief alterations we can learn from Mr. Loring : — 

[70-*] The principal rights of individuals as citizens of the United States, thus 
created by the Constitution, were those of the elective franchise in forming the 
House of Representatives ; of protection in property, liberty, and lite under the 



128 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

laws ; ami the rights of universal citizenship in the territories and jurisdiction of 
each State. The principal rights of the States were the elective franchise of equal 
representation in tlie Senate; of protection in the maintenance of a republican form 
of government, and against foreign invasion and internal sedition ; with tJie enjoy- 
ment, in common with the inhabitants of all the other States, of free and unrestricted 
trade and intercourse among themselves, and of equal commercial advantages in 
their trade and intercourse with foreign nations. 

To wliicii was added the participation in tlie sovereign power of enacting amend- 
ments to the Constitution, if Congress should elect that mode of submitting any to 
the tribunal of State determination. 

What a gracious Constitution! So very condescending as 
to permit even these poor insignificant States, to even " partici- 
pate in the sovereign power of enacting amendments to " — 
even its august majesty ! What other Constitution of Govern- 
ment equals that in benignant beneficence ? Of course it would 
be mock generosity to dispose of what is another's property. 
Its gracious benefactions are of its own inherent, imprescriptible 
rights. What a blessing to live under such a Constitution ! 

Did the new Constitution extend the privileges of commerce ? 
Read the third and fourth of the Articles of Confederation pro- 
viding for trade at home and abroad. The improvement was 
not in enacting new rights, but in delegating to the Federal 
Agency the power to regulate the exercise of rights existing, 
upon questions arising between Citizens of different States. 
The change was a restraint upon old rights, instead of a crea- 
tion of new ones. 

As to " protection from foreign invasion and internal sedition," 
the chief change made by the Constitution was in committing 
to the Federal Agency full authority over the individuals and 
their property for all purposes of war, instead of calling upon 
the States for their quotas. But the power over commerce, and 
any and all means of taxation for the common defence, Pufen- 
dorf explicitly mentions as appropriate to a Confederacy. (See 
p. 29.) 

The right of franchise will soon be considered ; and the allu- 
sion to the Senate is even more unfortunate for Mr. Loring. It is 
well known that the true Federalists insisted upon equal votes in 
the Senate, as direct Representatives of coequal Sovereign States, 
as the best and an effective means of preventing consolidation. 
Madison's notion, that the plan adopted in the House nation- 
alized the Government, was a mighty obstacle to ratification, 
which the friends of the Constitution had to offset with the safe- 
guards secured in the Senate. But what the fathers thought, is 



§ 36.] The Constitution changed not the Nature of our Union. 129 

only irnjDortant by way of elucidation. What they did, is the 
main thing, which we are to decide by the written record, and 
the application thereto of the principles of political science. 

Universal Citizenship, too, was already provided for in the 4th 
of the Articles of Confederation ; but " protection in property, 
liberty and life under the laws," was, it is true, improved by the 
new Constitution; the joint Sovereignties " ordaining" that Con- 
gi'ess should make laws regulating transactions between the 
Citizens of different States. It is no gracious boon, like that of 
Magna Charta, from the Sovereignty to its faithful liege subjects, 
notwithstanding the graciousness of the Constitution ; but an 
ordinance, or fundamental law, from the State Sovereignties, 
commanding certain subjects to pass certain laws, and to judge- 
of and to execute those laws, for the benefit of all their faithful 
liege subjects in common. Get out of your head, Mr. Loring, 
the notion that these sovereign Peoples or their subjects are re- 
cipients of favors from our Constitutions or our Governments. 
All we have and are, under God, is due to our sovereign States. 

Of course, in creating different Departments of Government, 
provision had to be made to supply the officials; and various 
means were devised for their election. To diversify the character as 
far as practicable in Democracies. But by whom were Depart- 
ments and offices created ? Was it not by the States, whose 
ratification established " the Constitution betiveen^^ them ? And, 
did the Constitution create the elective franchise, the highest, 
most august right of Citizenship, and that which alone makes a 
man a perfect Citizen ? Rather an unfortunate allusion that 
for Mr. L.'s argument of Nationality ; for over this, the granting 
of which more than any other right indicates Sovereignty, the 
Federal Government has not the slightest power. Art. I., sec. 
2, provides that 

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 
the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. 

But the chief improvement Mr. Loring inadvertently omits ; 
the remodeling the administration, dividing it to coordinate De- 
partments. This, however, as Pufendorf said (see p. 31), would 
imply no change in the form of Government ; in no way affect 
the Sovereignty. 

Mr. Loring, however, is not satisfied with this evidence of 
Nationality, and under another head, " States under the Con 
stitution," with pecuHar logic argues : — 
9 



130 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''^ [T. 2. 

[71^^] One of the most important of the rights or privileges which tlie Constitu- 
tion confers upon every citizen of the United States as an individual, and that mainly 
involved in tlie consideration of the question in hand, is that of tiie elective franchise, 
in being represented in the House of Representatives in the national Government. 
This is obviously a national right, or one to which lie is entitled as a citizen of the 
United States, to be exercised for tlie common welfare of them all. And the mem- 
bers of the House, elected by its exercise, are representatives of the nation, a portion 
of its Governmenl, and, in no proper sense, representatives of the State, or in any 
way justifiable in regarding its peculiar interests otherwise than as component parts 
of the good of the whole. 

But although the individual is invested with this franchise as a citizen of the 
United States, or as one member of the whole nation, and to be exercised for the 
common good, it is nevertheless one granted to him as an inhabitant or member of the 
State to ivhich he belongs, and is inseparately connected with such membership ; so 
that if the State should cease to exist as a duly organized State, within the pro- 
visions of the Constitution, or he should cease to be an inhabitant of any such State, 
"the right or franchise would no longer exist, althougli he might continue to be a 
citizen, and, as such, answerable to the laws of the United States. 

The subject of who confers the elective franchise, we have just 
conBidered ; and here, by this provision of the compact " between 
the States," the States have respectively enjoined upon their 
liege subjects, who in their several domains have the right of 
suffv^ge, to elect Representatives to Congress. It is of course a 
" national right " in regard to the object to be attained ; for it is 
to elect a Representative of the Nation of the United States, 
though from his respective State; an important truth, well ex- 
pressed, which extreme State-rights men have altogether over- 
looked. But the right of this representation, if primarily pos- 
sessed by the body politic of the United States, belongs ultiiTiately 
to nobody else than to the State itself. It is one of their rights 
generated by the compact " between the States." Yet as Repre- 
sentatives, their obligations primarily relate directly to the United 
States, and only ultimately to the Sovereignty for whose benefit 
the body politic of the United States was created ; as their oath 
intimates. 

Nor do we part company with Mr. Loring here. That last 
paragraph of his must be adopted entire to sustain my position, 
and directly contrary to his use of it, with thanks besides for his 
italicizing, saving me the trouble. Only let these Sovereignties 
jealously preserve this fundamental provision from Federal en- 
croachment, keeping the right strictly according to Mr. Loring's 
italics, and all the powers of earth and hell can never consolidate 
us. It is the thing of all to be watched and guarded in our 
present embarrassments ; and if unchanged, will surely bring us 
out in safety. State rights forever ! 



§ 36.] TJie Constitution changed not the Nature of our Union. 131 

Upon this important topic, that the Constitution has not 
changed the nature of our Union, we Federalists stand upon the 
defensive. The Government was unquestionably a Confederacy 
in 1787. If its nature has been chjinged, Consolidists must prove 
when, how, and by whom. Not only must they exhibit what are 
the essential changes, but prove that they were sufficient to re- 
model the very form of the Government which had been unde- 
niably a Confederacy. 

We have had from Mr. Loring himself a correct abstract of 
the powers under the first Constitution [GOJ^^e^ and the changes 
made by the second ; and what single one of them would not 
be a natural and proper object of attainment in establishing a 
Confederate Government? Is it reasonable to affirm an entire 
change in the very frame of our Government, if these are all the 
results ? Yet they constitute the chief, if not the sum total. 
But Mr. Loring has the advantage of most Consolidists, in not 
making so much ado about this great and fundamental change 
by the new Constitution, and in vesting his rights of Nationality 
and of Sovereignty in the United States, upon a basis antecedent 
to both. All the Consolidists will have to jump upon his plat- 
form. There is, however, one other difficulty to be considered : — 

§ 37. Mr. Loring's Nation has no Power, all Powers of 
THE United States being specifically vested in coordi- 
nate Departments. 

The most remarkable feature of our system, and that wherein 
its safety mainly lies, seems to have had no consideration from 
commentators. The body politic of the State is, of course, 
the main element in our political structure, if we constitute a 
Federal Republic; for it possesses the Right of Command, the 
Sovereignty. But the smallest of these States being too large 
to convene the Citizens who constitute the State, they must, as 
before observed, introduce the principle of Republicanism, or 
representation, to exercise the powers of Sovereignty. Herein 
consists the chief difference between Democracy and Monarchy ; 
for it was a solemn truth that Louis XIV. uttered, ^^VEtat c'est 
moi^'' — " the State is to me," — " I am the State." He, the pos- 
sessor of the Right of Command, as an individual, could also 
exercise the powers of Sovereignty, which unchecked bring des- 
potism, unless the possessor have almost superhuman character- 
istics. The greater or less distribution of these powers, whether 



132 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon '•'■ Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

the Right of Command be possessed by the one, the few, or the 
many, produces what we style Government ; which is more or 
less perfect as the distribution of power is efficacious in creating 
checks and balances in the administration, counteracting the 
tendency to aggrandizement. 

Man as an individual, is depraved and vicious; and although 
every man is not as bad as he might be, yet provision has to be 
made against the whole of them, as if every one was a devil, in 
order to secure properly against those who prove themselves 
worthy sons of the father of lies. But this Government must 
be administered by imperfect man, who so loves the exercise of 
power, that he constantly seeks for more ; so that as the philo- 
sophic Calhoun argues in his profound work upon " Govern- 
ment," the chief danger lies in their running into despotism, to 
the destruction of the objects for which States themselves, and 
their Governments, are instituted. And the chief advantage of a 
Free State over others is, that its nature compels the distribution 
of its authority to various agents, creating more than ordinary 
checks and balances. Upon this point, judicious expression 
was given by that honored son of Massachusetts, Governor 
Sullivan : ^ — 

That form of government whicli will best secure the lives and property of the 
subjects of it, and at tlie same time secure the people against the ambitious and un- 
just claims of their rulers, is considered as the one most highly to be prized. We 
find from history that such a form of government as will completely effect these 
important purposes has been generally sought after ; and since our imperfect state 
does not allow us this blessing in its full extent, we are to exert ourselves to estab- 
lish as good a government as we are capable of supporting. 

The maxim adopted by Mr. Pope, and others, who never thought soberly upon the 
subject, " That the government which is best administered is best," has done great 
injuries to the liberties of mankind. It is a maxim which serves as an apology for 
not thinking, and it has no foundation in nature or politics ; unless by this expres- 
sion they mean that a bad form of government well administered, gives more ease 
for the present moment, than a good one illy administered. But there is no secu- 
rity for the good administration of a bad government ; unless we are to suppose that 
the administrators of it are perfect, and raised above the reach of the passions and 
prejudices, to which other men are liable. Whenever such rulers can be found, [if 
possessed of infinite knowledge, and other traits of perfection,] there can be no ne- 
cessity for forms of government, or declarations of rights. Government is founded 

1 I am indebted to Mr. T. C. Amory, grandson of Governor Sullivan, for calling my at- 
tention to an interesting pamphlet by the latter, in the Historical Society, published 1791, 
entitled " Observations upon the Government of the United States of America," which I 
design soon to republish with comments, should my views prove of interest to the public. 
While bringing to consideration important and practical truths, of infinitely greater moment 
now than when delivered, and from a patriot and a statesman of high eminence, and a 
thorough State-riglits Democrat, it will serve, also, to point out some of the errors which 
have so perniciously misled the sons. 



§ 37.] Poivers of U. S. are vested in coordinate Departments. 133 

in human nature ; the imperfect state of the human race, the passions and preju- 
dices, to which we are all liable, render a coercive, associated power necessary to 
our preservation : and when a delegation of authority is made to one or more of our 
fellow-men, in order to restrain these passions and prejudices, and to prevent their 
dreadful effects, the same reasons which render this delegation necessary, as 
strongly urge us to raise barriers against the abuse of it by those wlio hold the 
civil power. — pp. 9, 10. 

Because of this, Limited Monarchy is a wonderful improve- 
ment upon the (Tovernment of the one, of which our own mother- 
land affords the best specimen; from which we had probably 
never been separated, but for the confusing notion of Blackstone 
and of Locke, that instead of a mere check upon the Monarch, 
by his own agreement calling in the Lords and Commons to aid 
him in legislating, the Sovereignty itself had become transfen-ed 
to Parliament. And the distribution from necessity is still more 
perfect in a Democratic State ; and finds its perfection, in a union 
of these States in a Federal Republic. And equally in all forms 
of Government is this effected, by removing from the possessor 
of the Right of Command, the exercise of that right, and dis- 
tributing it among several Departments, coordinate and inde- 
pendent of each other, while subordinate to the Sovereignty 
itself. That point, however novel in this day of vain conceit 
of knowledge, will be found worthy of consideration. 

With no other machinery than our State Governments, this 
separation and distribution would have been acknowledged ex- 
cellent ; but the creation of our first Federal Government, im- 
perfect as it was, gave another distinct and independent Agency; 
and by remodelling under the present Constitution, we have 
obtained beyond the least doubt, the very best system of checks 
and balances upon the exercise of power that was ever devised. 
Yet it is not perfect; and what object can be imagined more 
worthy of study and of labor, than that of still further improving 
our Heaven-sanctioned system of Government ! 

Sullivan, with precision of thought and of language, ob- 
serves : — 

Could we understand our present political situation, as a nation, and as separate 
States ; could we carefully and impartially examine it, in all its nice and regular 
forms ; could we see the beautiful connection of all the healthy and vigorous parts, 
which compose the unprecedented and glorious system of government, which 
Heaven has seen fit to bestow upon us, we should view the man, who would dare 
to predict a change of it, as to its essential principles, as our most implacable and in- 
veterate enemy. AVe should hold him as the common enemy of mankind ; because, 
unless the enlightened people of United America can support the dignity of free- 
men, and enjoy the blessings of a free government, there is no hope left for the 
human race. — pp. 13, \i. 



134 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruct ion ^ [T. 2. 

But the considerate reader will have observed an essential 
distinction, not so much between the Governments, as between 
the two bodies politic of the State and of the United States, in 
their tenure of authority. The one is the creature of the other; 
thirteen originally joining for that purpose. The latter is consti- 
tuted the Agent of the States for the exercise of their powers of 
war and peace, coining money, making treaties, etc., specifically 
enumerated in the act of incorporation, and in the letter of author- 
ity, the Constitution. But will Mr. lioring please make a note 
as to the powers of his sovereign Nation, and quite apropos to 
his note, p. 108, that so fearful were the States of this central 
power, and of its usurping their Rights of Command, that instead 
of entrusting the requisite powers directly to the United States 
for exercise, they are specifically delegated to separate and inde- 
pendent coordinate Departments. Says 

Art. I., Sec. 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Con- 
gress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Represent- 
atives. 

The grant, however, is not in fee, absolute; but in trust, in 
tail, though made for perpetuity, because the contract is of that 
nature. It could not be absolute, as we have learned from Pufen- 
dorf, without an actual transfer of the Right of Command itself; 
and against this dreaded calamity, perfect security was provided, 
in this direct and positive vesting' (in trust) in different Agents. 
The legislative Powers, as we see, are vested in Congress ; and 
Art. 11. says, " The executive Power shall be vested in a Presi- 
dent of the United States of America;" and Art. III., "The 
Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Su- 
preme Court," etc. 

With abundant safeguards and caution are these powerful 
Agencies guarded from interference with each other, and prohib- 
ited from any stretch of their authority ; and this dangerous 
matter of encroachment upon the reserve of powers, was still 
more effectually provided for in the 10th amendment. That, too, 
proves the grant not to have been in fee, but in trust, the powers 
being only delegated ; for a delegate is and can be nothing more 
than an agent. 

Here, the extraordinary construction of the Constitution, 
which Mr. Loring presents in [SG]!*^-^, would seem to be in place 
to consider; and correction of our Author's use of that first 
quotation, — " to provide for the common defence and general 



§ 37.] Poivers of U. S. are vested in coordinate Departments. 135 

welfare of the United States" — is a delicate task. His fair- 
ness precludes the possibility of intentional perversion ; his 
learning should teach him that it has no general application, but 
is special : — 

The Congress sliall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and 
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general ice/fare of the 
United States. 

No general power is here given to the Federal Government, 
but the law-making part of it, Congress, being entrusted in part 
with this new and important power of revenue, it is with due 
caution limited to the two purposes named. Yet that is the 
sum total of authority that the whole People of the United 
States as a Nation, the United States Government, or any De- 
partment of it, has in the premises. Nor is the authority in the 
slightest degree expanded by the second quotation Mr. L. makes, 
as the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided. Mr. Loring is 
hard pushed to find general powers for his supreme Nation, to 
rest upon these clauses, which instead of being indefinitely expan- 
sive, were designed to be and are expressly restrictive. Because 
" the Government is [wo/] the sole agent of the People " for this 
purpose, but because these free and independent States would 
have their own special Governments for all but the few impor- 
tant affairs which could best be managed conjointly ; each one 
has reserved to itself, by the 10th amendment, " the supreme 
authority to decide every question arising under it, in the partic- 
ular modes pointed out by the Constitution [which is no in- 
fringement of that supreme authority, because such is their vol- 
untary engagement,] where such questions admit of their appli- 
cation, and bi/ its own action where none snch are provided.''^ 

The subsequent extract from the Constitution, which Mr. 
Loring imperfectly quotes, should also be further noticed. 
Art. I., sect. 1, was quoted p. 134, Sec. 8 begins as just 
quoted, and seventeen distinct subjects are enumerated, which 
are committed to the care of Congress, all of them requiring 
laws or public proclamations — mostly the former — to carry 
the provisions into effect. The section thus concludes : — 

To make all laAvs which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into effect the 
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- 
ment of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. 

That is, the entire power of legislating concerning the ques- 
tions entrusted to the Federal Government, is delegated to Con- 



136 Heply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''^ [T. 2. 

gress ; the Senate and House of Representatives. They are 
only authorized to make the laws requisite, and only upon the 
specific subjects enumerated ; and the grants being necessarily 
genera], the next section puts important restrictions concerning 
the mode of legislating upon the subjects before enumerated. 
The judging of the laws, and the execution of the laws, are 
entrusted to coordinate, independent Departments. Language 
could hardly make the restriction more precise and definite, lim- 
iting Congress to the power of legislation. 

It is true, that not only over these subjects enumerated, but 
also over " all other powers vested by this Constitution in the 
Government of the United States," Congress is to legislate. 
But what single one can be named which is not, as we have 
seen, specifically vested in its appropriate Department? No 
one power is entrusted to the Federal Government as a whole. 
So that at most, until the Constitution shall be altered, and 
some power granted in general, it is but a superfluity. It does 
not in the least expand the powers of Congress. 

The first " powers " Mr. Loring printed in the singular num- 
ber, — probably an inadvertence; but why did he omit the last 
clause, of great significance to my side of the argument, and 
particularly appropriate to this caption — "or in any Depart- 
ment or Ofiicer thereof " ? Not that I would intimate inten- 
tional unfairness. Nothing of that sort will ever be intimated 
by me. A criminal intent should of course be denounced with 
directness ; not intimation. But our experienced legal Author 
comes to the subject too much as an advocate, twisting law and 
fact to suit his hypothesis. Mv deficiency may be greater than 
his superfluity ; but I defy any other Consolidist to make more 
out of the Constitution for that side, than Mr. Loring has done. 
And has he not made the utmost possible use of all the law to 
be found, even to using it twice over ? 

Mr. Loring, too, admits unqualifiedly, as shown in extracts 
[23]5'5, [24]57, [68]i25, [25 F*, [5]^^^ etc., that the Constitution gov- 
erns in the premises, and that the powers of the United States 
are to be held and exercised according to its provisions, with no 
right of change except through that instrument. He has also 
said, following [66J^-^: — 

[72-"] The Constitution was therefore reported by the Convention to tlie Con- 
gress for its approval and sanction, and by it the several State legislatures were 
invited to recommend the assembling of conventions of the people to decide upon 
its adoption or rejection ; and it was finally adopted by the people, or their delegates 



§ 37.] Powers of U, States vested in coordinate Departments. 137 

to conventions called for the purpose of deciding upon it, and tluis became the 
supreme law of the land. And by the nature and objects and letter and spirit of this 
Constitution must the question at issue now be decided, with the aid, where needed, 
of such light as may be drawn from the previous history above alluded to. 

As usual with Mr. Loring, that is a correct statement of the 
process whereby " the Supreme Law of the land," the Constitu- 
tion, was established. To that last admirable sentence need 
only be added — 'and from the principles of political science 
upon which the Constitution is based.' But this, it may be 
observed, destroys all possibility of Sovereignty in the Govern- 
ment to which allegiance is due, as affirmed in [23]^^^, and [68 P^^ ; 
because this Constitution, whereby the Government is created, 
itself " was finally adopted by the people, or their delegates,^'' 
which of necessity being superior to the Government and Con- 
stitution, neither of them could be sovereign, and therefore to 
neither is allegiance due. This, then, ought effectually to dis- 
pose of United States Sovereignty, so far as it is supposed to 
exist in its Government. It further appearing that this sover- 
eign Nation of the United States, not being possessed of, nor 
able to control a single one of the powers of Sovereignty, because 
they are vested in specific Departments; Mr. Loring exhibits true 
wisdom and prudence in making this vesting and granting of 
power to the United States, which most Consolidists regard very 
important, merely his bower anchor. Not long would it hold a 
monster ship of State like ours, in such a tornado as this through 
which we are being held in safety by twenty-three, then twenty- 
four, and now twenty-five, sheet anchors of State Sovereignty. 
And we want the eleven others to make safety sure, which in 
folly were hoisted, and taken away from our National Union, 
and in war's fierce heat have been fused and destroyed. Yet 
with strange forgetfulness and logic as strange, it must be ob- 
served that — 

§ 38. Mr. Loring, notwithstanding, makes the Federal 
Government a Unit with Sovereign Powers. 

In § 29, a difficulty of Mr. Loring's was discovered, in not 
properly discriminating between States and State Governments. 
As a Democrat, — which he truly is, if he only knew it, and why 
he is one — he would maintain the Sovereignty of the People ; 
though he prefers the People of the United States, and not the 
States, should possess what he would call genuine or paramount 
Sovereignty. For that he makes at least two grades, we shall 



138 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.'" [T. 2. 

see ; and this, and other objects which he pursues, lead him into 
an actual division of the Sovereignty to different subjects. Nor 
does the Sovereignty of the United States, as he advocates it, 
adhere to its one subject. But as we have seen, it is sometimes 
in the whole People of the United States; sometimes in the 
body politic of the States united ; sometimes in the Government 
of the United States; and sometimes in Congress alone. These 
trivial peccadilloes can be ascertained by glancing through his 
paragraphs ; but to exhibit them would not be a sufficient ob- 
ject in this paper to reexamine them. It seems desirable, how- 
ever, to establish the truth of this caption, in doing which we 
can observe these other difficulties. 

Our Author may deny this averment, and cite several pas- 
sages where he shows the States themselves have something of 
what he calls Sovereignty. Indeed, Mr. Loring's arguments are 
so ingenious, that, as we have seen, they can be made to prove 
a good many things by a little transposition ; and my best efforts 
shall be used to make the most of them to establish tlie doctrine 
of State-rights, which is quite as much in my heart as in his. 
His first heading, it is true, is against this of mine, as I have so 
often had occasion to notice ; and sti'anger still, is not his very 
concluding paragraph [A]^, strong in affirming his devotion to 
that first caption ? 

Notwithstanding, the truth of this heading can be established. 
And in running through his argument with this object in view, 
we will examine it in his own order of presentation ; and having 
so nearly quoted his first article entire, the paragraphs omitted 
will be introduced in their places. 

His very opening paragraph [1]^, flaunts his detestable doc- 
trine right in the face of his heading ; for he affirms the subjects 
concerning the " rebellion ag-ainst the national Government,''^ to be 
"the question of the day." And his own caption is so com- 
pletely scouted, that iVom that paragraph to the end of his papers 
— both of them, — not a syllable is to be found condemnatory 
of the South for their chief wrong, — and most heinous is it — 
the breaking of their compact with these sovereign States, which 
was the direct occasion of the war. and of their subjugation. 
Their crime, in his estimation, is " rebellion against the National 
Government ! " 

His next paragraph [2]^, adds insult to injury ; for he has the 
boldness to declare, that " no one who does not justify the rebel- 



§ 38.] Mr. Loring makes the Crovernment a Unit and Sovereign. 139 

lion denies "that the rights forfeited by " rebellion "» could be 
restored only by the pardon of the Government." I for one deny 
it point blank, and repeat, what I trust has been proved, that the 
Citizens of the seceded States are in no proper sense of the word, 
rebels ; nor is the Government authorized to do any thing in the 
premises, except to manage affairs temporarily under the rights 
of conquest, until the States shall meet in convention to deter- 
mine what shall be done. Here, too, he makes the Government 
the Alpha and Omega. 

" The practical issue," is stated in [3]'^, which is whether the 
" National Government," and " National Sovereignty " shall be 
maintained ; but the converse of the proposition, whether State 
rights shall be regarded, is unnoticed. But here the head has 
not full power, for the " Government" only has "the adminis- 
tration of the National Sovereignty." 

That insulting fling at the States appears in [7]^*^; and [8]^^ 
gives a definition of the word .State suitable for his argu- 
ment. 

One of the most ti'uthful and important passages of his papers 
is [45]^*^ ; and as before argued, it affords the only possible basis 
for our rights of conquest ; although he introduces it merely to 
exhibit the absurdity of the State-rights doctrine, following it 
with this : — 

[735] If this position be maintainable, it is difficult to perceive on what ground 
the rebel States can deny the authority of the Government, as the victor in the con- 
test, to dictate the terms of peace, and tlie terms upon which those States shall be 
re-admitted to their former privileges, and to hold them in subjection as conquered 
States during its discretion. 

Upon their own theorj-, therefore, and that still asserted by them as boldly as 
ever to be the only true one, there could be no question of the right of tlie Govern- 
ment to prescribe any terms of re-admission which it should think just and expe- 
dient. 

" Upon their own theory " it will be found that they might be 
conquered, and yet that the Federal Government was not the 
sole arbiter of their case ; and if there be any truth in his first 
heading, too, it will be so ascertained. Only in the event that 
it shall be proved false, can either of those paragraphs be sub- 
stantiated. But observe that the Government he makes all in 
all. 

Then comes in [6j^°, that positive denial of State rights, though 
it is in favor of the whole People ; which is succeeded by this, 
which has no relevancy, unless Mr. L. intends to intimate what 
he would never dare to affirm, that these States are as much 



140 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '-'• Reconstruction.^^ [T. 2. 

under the Federal Government as they were under Great 
Britain : — 

[74*^] Before the Revolution, and during its continuance up to the Declaration 
of Independence, they were inhabitants of colonies or provinces of Great Britain, 
claiming all their powers of internal government under her charters or commissions, 
and contending witii her only for immunity from alleged violations of them. They 
made no claim to any sovereignty, internal or external, not directly granted by or 
derived from her, or belonging to them as her subjects. 

They were in all respects integral portions of the British empire, and so portions 
only of one people. Every inhabitant of each colony had the entire and perfect 
rights of British citizenship in every otlier, and of carrying on trade and dwelling in 
it, under the laws and regulations of the empire, unobstructed and unrestricted by 
colonial legislation. 

They carried on the war of the Revolution for some time under the title of the 
United Colonies, and for the declared purpose of a redress of grievances only, and 
with no avowed view of establishing any national independence. 

[53]''''' continues the same error; and does it not flatly contra- 
dict the Declaration of Independence ? The endeavor is then 
made to represent the Continental Congress as assuming in its 
own right national powers, which as we saw, § 18, is a calum- 
nious assault upon the fathers, who kept strictly within their let- 
ters of authority. Says Mr. Loring : — 

[75"] The delegates to the second Congress, in 1775, were principally' chosen, 
not by the State legislatures, as representatives of the States, but by conventions 
of the people of the several colonies, as representing tliem ; althougli, in some in- 
stances, they were chosen by the popular branch of the legislature, the choice being 
afterwards ratified by such conventions. 

Soon after its assembling, and before its second session in September, actual war 
had commenced in Massachusetts, and was imminent in otlier colonies ; and the 
Congress immediately proceeded " to put the country into a state of defence." as one 
common country. It assumed and exercised control over the military operations 
of all the colonies ; created a continental army ; appointed Washington connnander- 
in-chief "of the continental forces," and, in a letter accompanying his commission, 
charged liim to make it his especial care "that the liberties of America i-eceive no 
detriment." It also provided a continental currencj' ; directed reprisals upon the 
ships and merchandise of (ireat Britain ; establislied a treasury department, general 
post-office ; and regulated the relations witli the Indian tribes. 

But while most of these paragraphs maintain National Sov- 
ereignty, it is of the People in the main, our Author's heart 
having too much restraining influence as yet; though in [11]^^ 
Sovereignty sUps more definitely into the Government. But in 
[64]^''^''^, in creating the State Governments, where, if anywhere, 
the Sovereign National Government would be supposed to act 
for itself; each Colony establishes its own Government, " with 
the recommendation of the Congress." And he distinctly recog- 
nizes the limitations of the National Government, and its " act- 
ing as the agent " of the People. 



§ 38.] Mr. Loring makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 141 

The true averment concerning the Declaration, except as to 
its being " enacted," is given in [12]'^^ . ^^ j ^ ^^^ contradiction 
of that instrument, denying the whole doctrine of State- 
rights, follows in [13]*3. Please observe the mastery the 
head has obtained in [14]^^ over both heart and conscience in 
the two concluding sentences. If true here, how many times 
has he falsely sworn ? But [60]'^^ takes away the " local allegi- 
giance," which in the transfer from the Crown was " not to the 
central national Government thus established, but to the colony 
itself, or, in the language of a resolution adopted by the Con- 
gress, ' to the laws of the colony.' " So that here is another 
location of the Sovereignty, in the laws themselves; but " the 
relations of individuals to the national Government were no- 
where defined, but left to construction." Is not that according 
to general principles? It was necessary; and [15]*" gives the 
reasons, with rather " loose" results. The effect of leaving " its 
internal authority " " to loose construction " ought to be a warn- 
ing to any devotee of general principles, for Mr. L. remarks : — 

[76i\] Whether eitlier of the colonies or States was so bound by tliis alliance as 
to be incapable of abandoning it at pleasure — being in the nature of a voluntary 
party to a copartnership without limitation of time, and without any right on the 
part of the other States to enforce its compliance with the requisitions of the Con- 
gress for the carrying-on of the war of independence, in which they had thus 
united — may perhaps be considered questionable; although such abandonment 
would seem to be an obvious breach of good faith to the rest, with which it had 
embarked as in a common cause. But the decision of the question is immaterial, 
as it was soon finally disposed of before it was practically, if ever, raised by the 
subsequent Articles of Confederation. 

Is not that an unfortunate admission as to this sovereign 
Nation of the United States, which ante-dates the States ? It 
" may perhaps be considered questionable," whether a colony 
might not " abandon it at pleasure " I Where is the authority 
for a Nation that constituent members at will may abandon ? 
The difficulties are not surprising which are portrayed in [16]*^; 
nor is the humble suppliancy of the Continental Congress in their 
patriotic eflbrts to change such a Nation as that into a pure 
Confederacy. The powers of the new Government are recited 
in [GQ]'-*^; and [17]''^ describes the grand truth that then "the 
people of the States, thus united, constituted one Nation." But 
[18]^-^ proves that the Government wanted more Sovereignty, 
and there must be " a closer bond of union as one people, under 
a common government, having internal as well as external sov- 



142 Reply to 3Ir, Loring upon " Meconstructmi.'' [T. 2. 

ereignty "; and there the Sovereignty is again put into the Gov- 
ernment. To that Mr. Loring adds : — 

[77I'] And from this necessity resulted the Constitution, upon the nature and 
construction of which the solution of this question must now depend. 

Such was the condition of the nation and of the several States at the time of the 
adoption of that Constitution, and such the evils which it was intended to remedy. 

These facts and views are summed up in [10]''°, in which by 
false logic he endeavors to prove that the States were not per- 
fectly " free, sovereign, and independent," because they had seen 
fit to exercise certain of their powers by the joint agency of the 
Continental Congress, instead of by their special agents of their 
State Governments. And yet to prove the strong Nationality, 
Mr. L. argues : — 

[78^^] But no one, it is believed, can contend, that, after the adoption of the 
Articles of Confederation, any one State could have broken off from the confeder- 
acy and made a separate treaty of peace with England, or allied itself to any other 
foreign power ; or could have established any laws or regulations subversive of the 
common rigiits and interests of all, in their external relations with other nations or 
in those internal to each other. 

Why could it not? Was it because of this imagined Na- 
tional Sovereignty, or because it w^as held by compact? And 
then curiously is woven in [19J^^ ; which being rather sti'ong an 
admission, is qualified by the "but" in [20]53^ The results 
thus far attained towards Nationality are summed up in [21]"^^, 
which concludes that first division. 

And would not the caption of " Progress towards National 
Sovereignty " have been more appropriate ? Is not our honest 
Author sailing under false colors ? 

Still, it is quite certain, that thus far Mr. Loring has proved 
himself a better State-rights Democrat than do most who make 
greater professions of Democracy, for he has several times recog- 
nized the Sovereignty of the People ; though in the Nation in 
the main instead of the States. But as he warms with his sub- 
ject. Sovereignty glows within him as well as in his Nation. 
This heading and extract follow, which begin the second divi- 
sion, which in the pamphlet is Chapter II : — 

J7918J 77jg Constitution — Formation of] and Individual and State Rights and Duties 

under it. 

There was a provision in the Articles of Confederation for making alterations 
therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of 
the several States. And in February, 1787, in the Congress then in session, a re- 
solve was passed, reciting that whereas e.xperience had evinced that defects existed 
in the present confederation, and a convention of delegates had been proposed to 



§ 88.] Mr. Loring makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 143 

remedy tliem, " and such a convention appeared to be the most probable means of 
establishing in these States a Jinn national governiufint," it was expedient to call a 
convention of delegates for the purpose of revising the articles, and reporting to 
Congress and the several legislatures " such alterations as should, under the Fed- 
eral Constitution, be adequate to the exigencies of government and the protection 
of the Union." 

Tiie several States assented to the proposition, and appointed delegates to the 
Convention, which assembled at Philadelphia, in May, 17S7. 

Although the purpose of the Convention was to amend the Articles of Confeder- 
ation, it was soon apparent from the common stock of information contributed by 
the delegat<^s, of the utter inefficiency of any mere league or confederation to ac- 
complish the ends desired, that nothing short of a consohdated national govern- 
ment, with full powers of maintaining itself internally, as well as externally, bj' di- 
rect action upon tlie individual citizens composing the nation, in regard to all that 
pertains to tlie exercise of national as distinguished from municij al authority, could 
answer to the national exigency. 

And the final result of prolonged, laborious, and exhaustive discussion of the 
subject bv tiie greatest men of that age, and who would have been not less distin- 
guished in any other age or nation, was the present Constitution. 

The fact is not material, yet noteworthy, that six States took 
the matter into their own hands, as they may have to do again, 
appointing delegates before the resolution of Congress ; which is 
not exactly quoted above, yet presents the point before referred 
to, that the Articles of Confederation are properly styled a Con- 
stitution, and its modus operandi^ a Government. But if the 
Con.<titutioi] effected " nothing short of a consolidated national 
Government," the letter of the Convention to Congress, signed 
by Washington, was quite a mistake, for that spoke of " the 
consolidation of our C/>ifow," as the object ; a matter which 
Webster well understood, for when charged by Hayne with 
seeking consolidation, he referred to that letter, saying that was 
the consolidation sought, and not " that odious," " obnoxious 
consolidation which I disclaim."^ 

1 The just retort of Massachusetts' honored Senator upon the Senator from South Caro- 
lina, repelling what he rightly deemed an infamous aspersion of his patriotism and wisdom, 
may well be given in this connection : — 

" On yet another point I was unaccountably misunderstood. The gentleman had harangued against 
' consolidation." I told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which I was attached, 
and that was the consolidatiou of our Union ; that this was precisely that consolidation to which I 
feared others were not attached, and that such consolidation was the very end of the Constitution, the 
leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. I turned to 
their communication, [the letter of the Federal Conyentiou to the Congress of the Confederation, trans- 
mitting the plan of the Constitution.] and read their very words, ' the consolidation of the Union,' and 
e.\pre.ssed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said, in terms, that I wished not in the slightest 
degree to augment the powers of this government ; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge ; and 
that by consolidating the Union I understood no more than the strengthening of the Union, and per- 
petuating it. Having been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book the preci.se words 
which I adopted, as expres.sing my own .sentiments, it pas.ses comprehension how any man could under- 
stand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation in that 
ODIOUS sense in which it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the powers properly 
belonging to the States. 

" I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of the Constitution, I read their Ian- 



144 Rei^ly to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstriietion.'''' [T. 2. 

It is also noteworthy, that such are the imperfections of lan- 
guage, that precisely what Mr. Loring affirms to have been 
the object — "a consolidated national government," operating 
"upon the individual Citizens comprising the Nation," — was 
attainable and desirable, and was effected, without the consol- 
idation of the States which he imagines; and that, without sub- 
jecting the Citizens to Federal or National Sovereignty. Yet 
Mr. Loring endeavors, against the desires of his heart, to prove 
that in " the exercise of national as distinguished from munici- 
pal authority," the People of the United States were effectually 
consolidated. 

Mr. Loring presents in [66]^-^, a direct contradiction of the 7th 
article of the Constitution ; declaring, according to Webster's 
lead, that a Government was instituted in place of a league. 
What is the meaning of Federal? How can anything be 
"established between the States" (see 7th article) except by 
league ? and he claims the object to have been to " transfer the 
personal allegiance of their Citizens to that of a central Gov- 
ernment." Here is the Sovereignty put out of the People again 
into their Government; and [72]^^^, an excellent and truthful 
paragraph by itself, represents the People doing this deliberately. 
The contrast between the two Governments is given us in [65]^-^ 
and [22]^^ ; and the perfect Sovereignty " as that possessed by 
any other Government, of any other Nation," is declared in 
[23]^^. That is literally true, for no Government has Sover- 
eignty. But that was not our Author's idea. He meant that 
whatever Sovereignty any other Nation had, the Government 
of the United States had ; and with italics he argues that the 
States have no Sovereignty. But it is noticeable that though 
he begins that paragi-aph to establish the entire Sovereignty 
of his " firm National Government," he concludes with " the 
whole People of the United States .... as the ultimate source 
of all national power and Sovereignty." Good for the heart ! 

The mixture of [24]'^', would have confounded Pufendorf, for 
the States have " original " " powers ; " there are " new powers 

guage audibly, and word for word : and I pointed out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, 
between the consolidation of the Union and that other obnoxioits consolidation which I disclaimed. 
And yet the honorable member misunderstood me." — Works, HI., 304, 305. 

Equally intamous is the " misunderstandiiiff " that the fathers, with veiy few exceptions, 
souglit any other consolidation than that of the Union. The consolidation of the States was 
their utter abhorrence. And seeing they are not here to defend themselves, the aspersion 
would be more dastardly than infamous, were it not uttered in ignorance rather than malev- 
olence. 



§ 38.] Mr. Loring makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 145 

granted ; " " the Government of the United States possesses 
powers " ; and the " collective People (italicized) are " made the 
depository of all other power whatsoever " ! Who did all that ? 
No wonder is it, that [54]^ should begin with treating of " much 
profitless discussion," which found its appropriate place in § 28. 
And then in [68J^^^ comes the astounding declaration, for a 
State-rights man to make, that even these States owe allegiance 
to the Federal Government. What is a heart good for that can 
thus be over-ridden? And even "the adoption of the Con- 
stitution " is made the means of uniting " themselves as one 
people under one supreme national Government invested with 
all necessary powers of national Sovereignty, internal and ex- 
ternal." Is not the head here master of the situation ? And so 
carried away is our Author by his theory, that in [VOp-" he proves 
how the rights, not only of Citizens but of States, are " created 
by the Constitution," — query, must not the Constitution, then, 
instead of the Government be Sovereign ? — and, most glorious 
boon of om* most gracious Sovereignty, was added — " participa- 
tion in the sovereign power of enacting amendments to" — it- 
self! But that would be too princely even for our benignant 
Sovereignty to bestow unconditionally, and Congress is made 
the days-man between the dazzling glory and the miserable sub- 
jects. What a mysterious, awe-inspiring topic of contemplation ! 
And so thoroughly does the logic operate upon the convictions 
of our Author, that his enthusiasm and devotion find inadequate 
vent in [2bf^, even with the italics ; wherein his feelings have so 
much influence upon his argument, that the heart again asserts 
supremacy in the concluding sentence, to the perfect demolition 
of the Sovereignty of the Government or of the Constitution ; 
for " It was the People of the whole United States which thus 
created," etc. So that although the States as well as all their 
rights, " have no other origin, no other right to be " [25]^9, ex- 
cept as they have been instituted at the will and pleasure and 
for the glory of his sovereign paternity; the practical good 
sense of this ingrained State-rights Democrat, finds further 
utterance in [26]^° ; and as our Author's extreme prudence in 
enforcing his thoughts deterred his italicizing a single word of 
that paragraph, the liberty was taken to call attention to some 
of the beauties. There, too, it was the » nation or people," 
though he thinks it was a consolidated one, which had the 
reserve of power, and of course the Sovereignty. 

10 



146 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [ T. 2. 

That being sufficient to establish the truth of his caption of 

that division, this paragraph introduces the next, or Chapter III. 

in the pamphlet : — 

[80-"] We have then next to ascertain what were the relations of tlie inhabitants 
of the several States to the national Government, and their rights and obligations as 
such inhabitants under the Constitution. 

States under the Constitution — Rights of Representation in Congress — Conditions of — 
Effects of State Rtbellion. 

The first paragraphs [5] '^^ were put into §23; but desiring 
something positive in the opening, they were afterwards trans- 
posed. Had the appositeness of Mr. Loring's caption to ray 
own been noticed, however, as it just now occurs to me, they 
would have there been kept. 

The noticeable points of those paragraphs in this connection 
are, that the division of the Sovereignty is distinctly observable ; 
and also the entire subordination of the States to the Constitu- 
tion. That is another possessor of the Sovereignty. Yet has not 
Mr. L. just previously said with correctness, [26]^'^, " The only 
authors or framers of the Constitution were the inhabitants of the 
several States in their primary capacities as the acknowledged 
FOUNTAINS of all political power"? So that here again, is not 
the creature put above the creator ? Is not the Federal Govern- 
ment here made a unit, and the source of all other power? To 
establish the fact of this subordination, and exhibit its extent, 
he supposes that in [71]^^*^ which follows [5]^^, he has proved 
that even the elective franchise depends upon the supreme Gov- 
ernment, and " is obviously a national right " ; for although the 
Constitution grants the rights, the Government is the all in all 
for which the rights were created, as well as the States. These 
paragraphs complete that portion of his argument, in which it 
is observable, that in conclusion he lets even the States have 
somewhat dependent upon them. Is that all a State-rights 
Democrat could allow ? — 

[8P^] This is evident from the language and spirit of the Constitution. It pro- 
vides that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen 
every second year by the people of the several States ; and the electors shall have the 
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legis- 
lature." 

Again : " No person shall be a Representative who siiall not, when elected, be an 
inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Again : " Representatives 
and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this 
Union according to their respective numbers." " The number of Representatives 
shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each Slate shall have at least one 
representative." " When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the 



§ 38.] ilir. Loving makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 147 

executive authority thereof sliall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." The 
existence, therefore, of tliis franchise, although it is vested in the individual as a 
citizen of the United States, is nevertheless made dependent upon his membership 
of a State, regularly constituted within the Union, and upon the action of such 
State in prescribing his qualifications as an elector ; and, in case of a vacancy, upon 
the will of the executive to cause it to be filled. 

Then [ZQf^ happens also to have fallen under a more befit- 
ting head than Mr. Loring's ; as well as [Sl]*^^ ^hich delineates 
the result of our Author's determination to make the Federal 
Government a unit with sovereign powers. And very naturally, 
the wide latitude of construction which his hypothesis requires, 
is in this connection presented in [GIJ^^^. concerning which it 
may be remarked, that considering the truth of that first sentence, 
and the striking congruity which we have discovered between 
Mr. Loring's discussion and the Constitution ; the reader may 
be left to draw his own inferences, whether at least equal ditii- 
culties do not result from the argument, as from those imagined 
to result from " any other construction." 

[29]*^^ and [27]^^ make more " manifest " the astounding con- 
sequences of rebellion against this unit-Government, proving 
conclusively how a Nation can conquer itself. Many of us have 
heard somewhat about the necessity of each individual man 
effecting this considerable work ; but it was left for Mr. Loring 
to demonstrate how a State or Nation could do it effectually. 
And please observe how exactly these entire paragraphs work 
into their appropriate place in my argument. Is their force, in 
the least impaired by the change of preiTiises or captions ? 

From them Mr. Loring continues : — 

[82^*] And such was tiien the universal belief and conviction of all the ofiicers 
of the Government, and of the people of the loyal States, excepting those who had 
always sympathized in the rebellion, and who, at the least, are now entitled to the 
credit of consistency in taking the opposite ground. 

No one was more empliatie in the assertion of this principle than the President, 
who, in an official proclamation, declared that those States " were deprived of all 
civil government ; " and authorized the publication of his declaration in conversa- 
tion that " the State institutions are prostrated, laid out on the ground, and that they 
must be taken up and adapted to the progress of events." 

So Mr. Seward, in his telegram of July 24, 1865, to the provisional Governor of 
Mississippi, said "the Government of tlie State will be provisional only until the civil 
authorities shall be restored with the approval of Congress." And again, in that of Sept. 
12, 1865, a little more than a year ago, to Governor Marvin, of Florida, he says, "It 
must, however, be distinctly understood, that the restoration to which your procla- 
mation refers iviU. be subject to the decision of Congress." And the whole course of the 
President's conduct was in conformity with it. He held the inhabitants of those 
States, as he lawfully might and was bound to do, as under military control, and 
without authorized civil government; appointed provisional Governors ; and inter- 
fered with, and dictated terms for, the formation of their local governments. All this was 



148 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconsti'uction.'' [T. 2. 

justifiable only upon the hypothesis that he was exercising his military authority, 
in order to bring the people into loyal relations to the national Government ; but it 
was entirely inconsistent with the idea that the States had any lawfully established 
civil governments under the Constitution. For, if they had, he could with no 
more propriety have thus interfered with them than with those of Pennsylvania or 
New York. 

And he continues to act on the principle that no such civil governments exist in 
those States down to this day. On what other principle does he justify interfering 
with the government of Louisiana, or calling the Governor, elected by her people, 
to account for his conduct, or passing judgment upon the lawfulness or unlawful- 
ness of conventions assembled there, or on the actions of State officers ? And by 
what right does he forbid and prevent the pirate Semnies from holding the judicial 
office to which he was duly appointed under the authority of the State Government 
of Alabama, if it has one which the Government of the United States is bound to 
respect ? And by what authority did he order the soldiery of the United States to 
aid and assist the murderer Monroe, in putting down an assembly of loyal citizens 
of New Orleans, if the State of Louisiana is under a regularly constituted State 
government ? Can he, or would he dare to, order the troops of the United States, 
to come to the help of the city police in any loyal State, unless on application by 
the State Government ? Any right of such interference is prohibited by the Con- 
stitution. And, if the President were to be impeached for this interposition of mil- 
itary force in New Orleans, the only justification he could set up would be, that the 
State had no civil government, but one in subordination to his military authority, as 
commander-in-chief, and that the interposition was necessary for the preservation 
of good order. 

The gist of those paragraphs is in the third, in the italics, — 
" will be subject to the decision of Congress,^'' — whither his argu- 
ment tends. Following is [28]'^* a perfect settler of the question 
under that same appropriate head. But in [62]^^^, the miserable 
victim gets more punishment, and some of the absurd notions 
resulting from foolish doubts as to the possibility of a whale's 
swallowing itself, get their quietus, with no useless waste of 
logic ; for " if the above views [Mr. L.'s] be sound, it is obviously- 
erroneous and needs no further argument." Yet it is to be 
hoped that the results of secession and of war — our rights of 
conquest — may still be found impregnable, although it should 
be demonstrable that the Nation had not conquered itself, and 
consequently that the " above views " should not prove as 
" sound " as might be desirable. The prudent observations of 
[52]^^ could hardly have been omitted in this connection ; and 
[32]*^" concludes that division, which is supposed to have demon- 
strated the benefits of conducting us to the true source of au- 
thority, our unit-Government : — and what are the results ? 
The States are in the Union, and they are not in the Union ; 
and the inhabitants, though traitors of the deepest dye, are " still 
entitled to protection and immunity, and the enjoyment of all 
the civil rights which they ever possessed as such," — - wrongs of 



§ 38.] Mr. Loring makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 149 

treason of course excepted. And there appears the gross injus- 
tice and impi-opriety, that while the Constitution does all the 
work, the Government, its creature and Agency, reaps all the 
benefits. But in a discussion based so much upon general prin- 
ciples, we must not be over nice about petty discriminations. 

If Mr. Loring stuck well to his National Sovereignty, would 
it permit this unexampled mixture of affairs ? But his sound 
State-rights instincts would never sanction that ; although his 
theory of this unit-Government is very corrupting to his argu- 
ment. And such is the supremacy of his head over his heart, 
that from his first heading of " State Rights," one after another 
has been substituted in accord with his theory, until a proper 
one comes, under which the Sovereignty of the National Gov- 
ernment could be demonstrated both by law and fact. This is 
the caption of the fourth division, Chapter IV. of the pam- 
phlet : — 

[83'''*] Powers and Duties of General Government in Relation to th^ States in Rebellion, 
and when left by the Rebellion icithout oryanized Governments under the Constitution ; and 
to Restoration of their Political Privileges under it. — Rights consequent upon War. 

The first paragraph was partly quoted [42]**, at the end of 
which a period takes the place of my semicolon, thus contin- 
uing : — 

[84*"] And hence it has been argued, that, in such cases, the General 

Government has no power to compel obedience or fulfilment of the obligations which 
the Constitution imposes upon the several States. 

This was the theory- adopted by Mr. Buchanan in the most perilous crisis of the 
country's history, and from which the leaders of the rebellion derived their chief 
encouragement to resist the national authority, which, if duly exened, might have 
saved her from the terrible struggle that ensued. 

And it is the argument still of secessionists and their sympathizers. A moment's 
consideration, however, seems sufficient to expose its fallacy. Upon looking into 
the Constitution, it is found to contain, among others, the following express pro- 
visions, applying exclusively to the States in their political corporate capacities as 
such, namely : " The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a 
republican form of government." " No State shall enter into any treaty or alliance 
or confederation," or " enter into any agreement or compact with another State or 
with any foreign power." " The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 
privileges and immunities of the several States." " The Constitution and the laws of 
the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law 
of the land." " The President shall take care that the laws shall be faithfuUij executed." 
And " Congress shall have power for caUing forth the militia to execute the laws of 
the Union, and suppress insurrection and repel invasion." And, in the face of these 
provisions, is it possible to believe that any one State may, at pleasure, impose a 
despotic or monarcliical government upon an unwilling and oppressed portion of its 
people ! or may enter into a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, with a for- 
eign nation ? or into one of commerce, with discriminating privileges in its favor, 
destructive of the interests of the other States ? or may prohibit the citizens of the 



150 Reply to Mr. Loving upon "■ Eecotistriietion.'' [T. 2. 

other States from enjoying the same privileges and immunities with its own within 
its borders, and expose them to loss of liberty and life upon undertaking to reside 
within them ? 

And [57]i"3 completes the jjaragraph. 

Because " it has been argued " by some simpleton or other 
who cannot distinguish a Constitution from a Government, that 
as " There is no express provision in the Constitution " [42]^*, 
therefore, " the General Government has no power to compel 
obedience ; " our logician, skilled in the use of enthymemes, is 
not to be parried by one so bald. The failure of secession is no 
wonder, if it rested on such an " argument ; " and the " sym- 
pathizers " ought to blush to their very ears at this merited ex- 
posure. " Fallacy " very inadequately expresses the weakness 
which " a moment's consideration " exposes. 

These " provisions, applying exclusively to the States in their 
political corporate capacities as such," it is appropriate under 
this head to consider. And first, these sovereign parties to the 
compact, having created the body politic of the United States 
for their convenience, safety, and glory, and for these objects en- 
trusted it with governmental powers, they make it the duty of 
this Agency to " guarantee to every State in this Union a Re- 
publican form of Government." To preserve this principle of 
Republicanism or Representation, is of the first moment to these 
Democracies ; compelling every faithful official, either State or 
Federal, constantly to heed Pufendorf's wisdom, (pp. 26, 27, and 
31,) and remember that they " are no more than Ministers of 
the Confederate States." 

It was wise, too, to make explicit what was necessarily im- 
plied by the compact, that the States should forbear to exercise 
their prerogative of treaty with each other or foreign States, ex- 
cept as provided for in the compact of the Constitution. But 
is this any thing more than a voluntary engagement, and indis- 
pensable to the accomplishment of the object for which " this 
Union " was itself instituted? Would that infract the Sover- 
eignty? Vattel thought not. (See p. 58.) 

Making the Citizens of the several States fellow-Citizens of 
"this Union " created by the compact, had been accomplished 
under the previous Constitution ; but as that was to be set aside 
" in order to form a more perfect Union," the provision was prop- 
erly repeated. Did that any more nationalize us under the sec- 
ond Constitution than under the first ? 

In creating the new Government, and extending to it equal 



§ 38.] Mr. Loring makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 151 

authority to legislate upon the questions entrusted to its care, as 
had been provided in their State Governments, it was foreseen 
that contlicts of opinion might arise ; and notwithstanding the 
tear of Consolidation, the fathers saw that the Government and 
the National Union would be ineffective if each State were left, 
at its own discretion, by its Constitution or its laws to interfere 
with the joint will expressed through the Federal laws and Con- 
stitution. They therefore judiciously provided that — 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pur- 
suance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority 
of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the Judges of the 
State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

In this land of law and order, which of all lands ought to be 
subject to the law, and governed by it, in the spirit as well as to 
the letter; for it is here the expression of the People — vox jjop- 
uH, vox Dei ; in this land of written law, it was supposed that 
every possible question of difficulty would find in the Judiciary 
a final solution. Hence that wisest of all the provisions in that 
paragon of political wisdom, our Federal Constitution. This 
the southern States had to violate, to destroy, as the first step 
in their career of crime and infamy. And I trust in God to 
be able to make it appear in subsequent examinations, that this 
has been the heinous offence for which those States have been so 
severely chastised.^ 

Where the duty of Congress, that of making laws, ends ; that 
of the President, of executing the laws, begins. And these sep- 
arate, distinct duties, must be confined strictly to their specific 
Departments ; of which the other coordinate Department, the 
Judiciary, is to be the arbitrator. 

Then when the President cannot execute the laws without 
physical power, the People's Representatives are to determine 
whether power is required, and to what extent. 

1 From beginning to end of the Sacred Word of life, does not our God teach us that his 
highest glory, the occasion of our trust in Him, lies in the truth that He is a covenant-keep- 
ing Gou ? Kead particularly the Old Testament, and see how the crime of covenant-break- 
ing is denounced and punished. 

In an early paper, should I continue to write, in examining the causes of our unexampled 
chastisement, 1 shall hope to substantiate this. 

Nor will the South alone be found guilty. God deals with Nations in this world ; and 
only for their sins are they punished. Nor is it with fiery indignation and vengeance ; " for 
whom the Lokd loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth." 
(Heb. xii. 6.) And the first object of consideration for these GoD-fearing Citizens and 
States should be, to ascertain wherein we have so violated " the Laws of Nature and of 
Nature's God," that such terrible judgments have been inflicted. 



162 Reply to Mr. Lormy upon " Reconstruction.'^ [T. 2. 

And so we might with profit consider every provision of that 
admirable State-rights document, our Federal Constitution. 

But while our generous Advocate-general rushes to the defence 
of " the General Government," he makes the Constitution the 
responsible party ; and more noticeable still, he quotes no other 
line from the Constitution touching the prerogatives of " the 
General Government," except the one extract, noticed p. 135 ; 
and it is the only one he could quote. Does not Mr. Loring, 
therefore, indirectly confirm the truth of my preceding caption ? 
Mr. Loring's quotations here declare what " the United States " 
shall do ; what the " States " shall not do ; the privileges of 
" Citizens ; " the effect of " the Constitution and the laws ; " what 
" the President " shall do ; what " Congress ; " but never a word 
about this " General Government." So that to answer these 
queries of our Author, we shall again have to resort to that 
never failing source — general principles. And if they can be 
made to show how the Constitution is the Government, and how 
the Government is the Constitution, they will prove efficacious ; 
and their application would doubtless be profitable to other 
parts of the argument. 

Evidently, our Author supposes a plain, common-sense truth 
like that needs no demonstration. But in a strictly logical ar- 
gument like this of our Author's, a premise of that consequence 
should be substantiated. We want to see how it is that the 
Constitution is made a Government, and vice versa. Until that 
is done, he is injuring the cause of" the General Government;" 
because he makes the Constitution superior to " the General 
Government ; " and that is " fiat burglary," for it is worse than 
rebellion. Yet inadvertently our Author is guilty of this very 
awful crime. Nor has he the least delicacy or compunction 
about the horrible iniquity, repeatedly making " the General 
Government " the creature of the Constitution. He remarks — 
" but by the Constitution, all this was changed " [22f^ ; " in short, 
it [the Constitution] established a firm national government," 
[23]-^'^ ; " new powers granted to them by the Constitution," 
[24]'^' ; " all these powers, rights, and immunities were created by 
the Constitution^'' [25]53 ; " by the Constitution, entire national- 
ity was substituted for confederation," [5]i'^ ; "all which were 
essential elements of their nature as States under the Constitu- 
tion" [29]^, — and a hundred similar expressions could be 
quoted. 



§ 38.] M7\ Loving makes the Goveryiment a Unit and Sovereign. 153 

Do not these passages, if true, destroy effectually the Sover- 
eignty of "the General Government?" How can that be su- 
preme which is itself the creature of an instrument? Of the 
two, surely the Constitution is the superior. So that it is my 
happiness again to agree with our Author in the penultimate 
sentence of [57]i03^ and the concluding query. For if the Con- 
stitution be so far inferior to the Government it creates, as Mr. 
Loring actually goes on to prove, it " must be accounted palpa- 
ble nonsense ; " not only resulting in " the absolute right of se- 
cession," but making secession from under it an imperative 
duty. 

'■ What, then, is the remedy?" is the query appropriately re- 
peated by me in [46]*-'. Nor is his remedy at all extraordinary. 
If we have a Government that is created by the Constitution, 
and which has obtained the mastery and risen to supremacy 
above its creator ; as Mr. Loring observes, " it is obvious " — 
very much so — "that war is the only remedy." And as in pre- 
vious consideration, we could recognize the truth of that para- 
graph as to the nature of such a contest, between such parties ; 
we can respond to the idea all the more heartily, now that we 
have clearer apprehension of the nature of the supreme party to 
the contest. We — the Reader and I — will not be so unrea- 
sonable with our Author as to expect any thing else of such a 
supreme paternal Government, than that it should have to resort 
always to war to enforce its authority. " It is obvious that war 
is the only remedy," — "war according to the public law or law 
of nations," 

There it is " obvious " that the heart got the start of the head ; 
for who ever heard of any other Nation than those composed of 
sovereign States, of which that could be said ? And see with 
what emphasis we are led on to his inevitable conclusion, apply- 
ing properly to the case none other than " the public law, or 
Law of Nations." What a noble specimen of a State-rights 
Democrat Mr. Loring would be, relieved of his hallucination of 
a National Sovereignty! for his practical good sense, against his 
theories, causes him to go on to show [40]*'^ how such a war as 
ours might be like " one between sovereign States of no ante- 
cedent connections with each other." Vattel is quoted, [39]'^, in 
support ; which, though not exactly appropriate to the point in 
hand, as we have seen, nevertheless exhibits our Author's sound 
animus ; and this is even better displayed in [47]9i ^nd [48]^'', 



154 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

which would entitle hira to a high seat among the truest devo- 
tees of State-rights Democracy. But our obligations have no 
stop here. By no means. For he is too well imbued with 
Democratic principles to trust simple Democracy, and he en- 
grafts upon that strong root the cultivated, unequalled scion of 
Republicanism. For in the ensuing paragraphs, [43]*** and 
r44]*&j is again exhibited the perfect subordination of this Gov- 
ernment of the United States, that so often gets to be sovereign, 
to the Constitution ; and he had before shown [66]^'^-^ that the 
latter was the creation of the People. And would he only hold 
right there, " this view \_ivoukr] furnish a satisfactory answer to 
the insensate clamor,'' etc., as he begins [58]^04, g^t his hallu- 
cination comes over him in conclusion, in endeavoring to pre- 
serve " the life of the Nation." 

The practical considerations of [34]*^^, and the queries of 
[41]^^, give little indication as to whether Constitution or Gov- 
ernment is getting the upper hand ; though the possibility of 
suppression of "the State government " proves that at least 
that has not very efficacious Sovereignty. Among his queries 
might not another be appropriate — Whether the ditference in 
man's nature as an individual and as a State, might not in some 
degree affect the application of principles, and the results? 
Those practical considerations are thus applied to the case in 
hand : — 

[85'''] And upon what principle can like autliority be denied to tiie Government 
of the United States over inhabitants of the States under its authority, until peace 
and security for life, liberty, and property of all loyal citizens within their borders 
shall be secured, leaving to such inhabitants the enjoyment of all other civil rights 
but those which entitle them to take part in the Government 1 

The principle so confidently maintained, that the inhabitants of the rebel States, 
upon the laying-down of their arms, became at once restored to all their political 
rights as States, as well as their former civil ones as citizens, until convicted of 
treason, involves the palpable and enormous absurdity that tiiey are thus restored, 
although such surrender was not only enforced upon them and was altogether invol- 
untary, as is the truth here, but was with intent of resuming their hostile attitude 
again as soon as they could gather strength for the purpose, and although the dan- 
ger of such resumption was palpably imminent, and although, in the mean time, 
they were perpetrating upon loyal citizens atrocious cruelties, from which the ordi- 
nary protection of civil law was entirely inadequate, and evinced a settled deter- 
mination to continue such perpetration. The case need but be stated to make its 
absurdity self-evident. 

Mr. Loring had shown [34]'^'*, that the rebels were guilty " of 
the blackest and most fearful crime known in human society ; " 
and he exhibits here " the palpable and enormous absurdity," 



I 



§ 38.] 3Ir. Loving makes the Government a Unit and Sovereign. 155 

that merely because they are not " convicted of treason," they 
" became at once restored to all their political rights as States " 
— there is another recognition of State rights ! — "as well as 
their former civil ones as citizens." It was Burke, I think, who 
considered it difficult to draw a bill of indictment against a 
whole People, which our Author evidently apprehends. But in 
surmounting that, he casts aside another well-established maxim 
of the law, that all are presumed innocent until proved to be 
guilty ; and without law or jury would punish both Citizens 
and States for their imagined treason against National Sov- 
ereignty. 

That quotation harmonizes with Mr. L.'s premises and entire 
argument. But would not my theory of State instead of Na- 
tional Sovereignty relieve the difficulties somewhat ? If by virtue 
of compact, the States and Citizens had certain rights, which by 
breach of that compact and by war they have lost ; would not 
the necessity of restoration be equally as indispensable, as if 
treason or rebellion had cut them off? As to this notion of 
Mr. Loring's, that the seceded States and Citizens are to be pre- 
judged as rebels and traitors, " the case need but be stated to 
make its absurdity self-evident." Yet Mr. L. trusts the " ab- 
surdity self-evident" with full confidence in his argument; for 
he goes directly on [63]ii3 — "Upon the principles of public 
law, therefore," etc. All " the public law" with which we have 
been favored, is that extract from Vattel ; and if that passage is 
to be made to prove, not only how a Nation can conquer itself, 
but also the right and justice of considering a Citizen — and 
even States — gtiilty until they are proved innocent; I opine 
Vattel would have regarded it as a slight stretch beyond what 
he had contemplated. But if "public law" be found weak, 
that paragraph will be found a strong conclusion; for it affirms 
positively, that " the General Government has the sole power 
and the right to determine " all the questions at issue. Some- 
thing of the sort was wanted to sustain the heading; for as we 
have seen, while the Constitution is a good deal referred to, and 
its supremacy might be considered to be argued ; no reference 
is made to this supreme " General Government," but to specific 
Departments of the United States, — i. e. of these States united, 
and as such constituting another body politic, which is author- 
ized by that Constitution, to have and employ certain specific 
Agencies for certain purposes of Government; that instrument 



156 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

giving at once being to the body politic, and authority to its 
Government; and both being merely Agencies employed by 
these sovereign States, for their convenience, safety, and glory. 

This introduces a new division, Chapter V, of the pam- 
phlet : — 

[86^^] Political Rights and Privileges of Rebel States forfeited and lost. — Restoration 
must be by Act of Government. — Law of Self preservation. 

And to keep even pace with our Author, in the twist his 
argument assumes, we must also have a new caption, for — 

§ 39. Mr. Loring makes Congress the Supreme Govern- 
ment. 

The natural continuation [55] ^o^, was noticed in its place. It 
affirms that " as matter of absolute, and inevitable necessity,^'' the 
right of restoration " of the seceded States," " resides in the Gen- 
eral Government;" and that " As the Constitution contains no 
express provisions," " such restoration is necessarily one of con- 
struction, or implied right or power, to be settled upon general 
principles." Evidently our Author appreciates the force of words 
equally with Webster or Hobbes ; and " the General Govern- 
ment " of course must have "general principles." How could 
any thing be " general " that did not apply to his " Govern- 
ment ? " and what sort of " principle " would the thing be, that 
did not sustain " the General Government ? " Why, anybody 
can apprehend that ; for indubitably it is " the proposition which 
first suggests itself." 

But that is merely " the proposition." The argument follows 
in [56]i"'^, which exceeds in originality and boldness, as before 
noticed, " The Constitution is the supreme law, and the Gov- 
ernment established by it was for the purpose of carrying that 
law into effect," Here it is correctly affirmed that " the Govern- 
ment [is] established by " the Constitution. Then it must be 
subordinate to the Constitution, and cannot be supreme. Also, 
it is an agency '■'•for the purpose of carrying that law into effect." 
Of course no agent can be supreme ; and our Author goes 
directly on to say, " The Government is the sole agent of the 
people for this purpose." There at last we have the source of 
power, "the people," of which "the Government is the agent," 
though " not sole agent ; " and with the drollest specimen of his 
logic our Author argues — " and so has supreme authority to 
decide any question arising under it." That does pretty well; 



§ 39.] Mr. Loring makes Gmgress the Supreme Government. 157 

but Mr. Loring with only a comma intervening adds — " in the 
particular mode^ pointed out by the Constitution when such ques- 
tions admit of their application," SO this Agency after all is 
not so supreme that the Constitution cannot hold it ; and our 
Author evidently perceiving that that will never do for his" Gen- 
eral Government," drops in another comma and adds, — "and 
by its own action when none such are provided." Such a Con- 
stitution needs no caoutchouc in its composition. If rigid as 
steel, our supreme " General Government " will stretch it when 
necessary. Why trammel our majestic eagle with this cobweb 
net ? 

Then, too, " The Government represents the whole people of 
the United States in all matters of law under the Constitution." 
So that nothing could be more timely than the recognition in 
[33p^, that " The nature of the political relations of the several 
States to the United States is obviously pure matter of law." 
Nor are " these and cognate questions outside of the Constitu- 
tion, but are questions under it." Mr. Loring, it must be re- 
membered, had immediately preceding, (56)^*^3, made those quo- 
tations from the Constitution, the propriety of his use of which 
we saw, p. 135. With full reliance upon the wisdom and propri- 
ety of his construction of the Constitution, the fundamental law of 
these Citizens and States ; how natural the observation in (33)*^^, 
that " The nature of the political relations of the several States 
to the United States is obviously pure matter of law." Please 
note the natural transition in the concluding sentences from " the 
General Government " to Congress, taking the reader captive 
along with our Author, and making them and all of us subjects 
to another and final holder of the Sovereignty, — Congress. 

Having so efl'ectually established the Right of Command in 
this new and hitherto unlocked for claimant, Mr. Loring is able 
with sound logic to go directly on to affirm in [49]^*, that " The 
action of Congress, therefore, seems not only justifiable, but 
an absolute necessity. All these questions being obviously 
matters of legal right, — of law purely, — the decision and the 
provision for them must of like necessity rest with the law-making 
power, — that is, the Congress, — or with the judiciary." What 
possessed our Author to admit " the judiciary " as a possible 
participant, I cannot imagine ; but he spells it with a small 7, 
and we shall soon see it is of no account. But what an admir- 
able specimen of natural logic, notwithstanding the slip on " the 



158 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'" [T, 2. 

judiciary!" These questions are of law purely. That is ad- 
mitted. Is not Congress the law-making power ? Who ques- 
tions that? Then, has not Congress the whole power over the 
subject? What subject can possibly be imagined which the su- 
preme law-giver cannot reach and govern? 

" The next proposition is, that State rights, being corporate 
rights or privileges or franchises only," etc., [50]^^ Is that insult- 
ing innuendo against " State rights " in good taste from a State- 
rio-hts Democrat? That is no imagined hypothesis which our 
Author is to rebut; but is a distinct " proposition " on his side, 
which according to his law and principles l>e goes on to estab- 
lish. And what civil right can be imagined that is not included 
in that category of " onlys?" Can you obtain a right to any 
thing, or dispose of a right in any way, except as the corporate 
Sovereignty shall have ordained ? What else is even the Sov- 
ereignty, the Right of Command itself, but the corporate prerog- 
ative controlling all others, generated by the State, and belong- 
ino- to the State, — the manii — unless it should have been 
granted to or usurped by, the few, or the one ? And here, re- 
moved all the way from the first head, its appropriate place, to 
this final division, we have a definition of State rights. God 
defend us from such a defender of States and of their rights ! 
They have no right except " as subjects of the National Gov- 
ernme«it!" (Congress so soon is deserted.) Very appropriate 
after all was his " only ! " 

It is undeniable, that if as '-subjects" their rights have been 
forfeited by rebellion and treason, their " restoration must be by 
a grant from the sovereign power which created them." So that 
the first question which presented itself in entering upon the dis- 
cussion was — § 16, Which had preexistence, the States or Union? 
If Mr. Loring be not there proved in error, ray entire essay is 
a failure; and if he there err, his hypothesis falls. But aside 
from that, let us analyze this declaration: " A grant" must of 
course be from some " sovereign power," either directly or by its 
authority. But what possible connection has that with " the 
National Government?" Has he not before shown, [49]^* and 
[33]^^ that these are " matters of legal right — of law purely ? " 
that they are " obviously pure matter of law ? " And the para- 
graph preceding, [56ji^''^ distinctly declared that " The Govern- 
ment is the sole agent of the people for this purpose." Has he 
not, as we have already seen, asserted repeatedly that the Gov- 



§ 39.] Mr. Loving maJces Congress the Supreme Government. 159 

ernment is subordinate to — the very creature of — the Constitu- 
tion ? Did he not declare in [26]*^o^ that " The only authors or 
framers of the Constitution were the inhabitants of the several 
States in their primary capacities ? " Will not this learned 
lawyer therefore admit, that " the national Government" cannot 
be sovereign, because it is itself created by the Constitution ? 
that the Constitution cannot be sovereign, because it is created 
by the People ? With this intermediate, what possible con- 
nection- then, have " the sovereign power," and " the national 
Government," except as the latter may be an Agent of the 
former ? If it be an Agent for any purpose, produce the letter 
of authority according to " the law purely," and not trust so 
much to "general principles." "The General Government" 
wants a more efficient, positive " general " than that to marshal 
its forces, with even so discreet an Advocate-general. 

And will our Author please inform us how it happens, if, as 
aveiTcd in [26]''*', "the inhabitants of the several States in their 
primary capacities," could "change the organizations and polit- 
ical constitutions of the several States, taking from them certain 
powers," and granting to them others; that here in this extract, 
" The States are in no sense sovereign ? " What is a State with- 
out its People ? Do not the People constitute the State ? But 
the head here obtains complete mastery, and even " the States 
are subjects of the Government established by the Constitution" 
— that is, the creator is subordinated, not only to the Constitu- 
tion it established for its convenience, but also to the Govern- 
ment that the Constitution generates — not only so, but — " and 
bound by the law in the same manner as other subjects " I 

Then [51]'-^^ makes confusion worse confounded ; for with ital- 
ics it is oracularly announced, that " The people of the United 
States was the grantor, and the p>eople of the several States ivere 
the grantees, of that right,^' (representation under the Constitu- 
tion) ; and these rights may be lost " in the same manner as may 
be any other corporate rights created by such governments." 
What? Has not our Author suihciently proved to convince 
any noodle, that the Government is not the creator, but is itself 
the creature ? Surely, then, our learned Author wants no further 
argument upon the point ; only needing to shake off some of 
those paradoxical writers that are confusing the subject he would 
make so clear one way or the other, if heart and head could only 
be brought into concord. As it is, one paragraph makes " the 



160 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction,''^ [T. 2. 

people grantor ; " in the next, are " corporate rights created by 
such governments." Nor can reconciliation of the two be effected 
by supposing that the Government grants the corporate rights as 
an Agent of the People ; for he in this same paragraph speaks of 
the possession of the rights as '"implying corresponding alle- 
giance and obedience to the Government from which they were 
derived." So that here in two adjoining paragraphs is the Sov- 
ereignty put first into the People, then into the Government. 
Let us have a little law and principles to sustain that. 

Congress is again brought to notice in [51 j-'''; and so com- 
pletely had its rights to the Sovereignty been argued, proved, 
established, confirmed, vested — all the strong verbs are wanted 
— by the logic of [33]^- and [49]^'*, that our Author here has only 
to speak of " The right of representation in Congress," and — 
" sesame I " the entire subject of the Sovereignty of (Congress is 
unfolded to view. It is no wonder, that in the plenitude of wis- 
dom which the knowledge generates, he should observe — " nor is 
it seen why Congi'ess might not " — please read the concluding 
sentence of that extract, and tell me what Congress could not 
do. De Lolme remarked that the British lawyers claimed that 
Parliament could do any thing but make a man a woman or a 
woman a man. But our lawyers will claim, that however Par- 
liament might fail, Congress would do w^hatever it undertakes. 
Whether this new sovereign power be beneath the People, like 
the Constitution and the Government, or whether superior to all 
three, doth not yet appear. Still, it is inferrable that it is subor- 
dinate to the whole of them ; for in concluding tliat extract, Mr. 
L. observes, that " the power of doing so [passing judgment, one 
of the most eminent prerogatives of Sovereignty], if any judg- 
ment were needed, necessarily resides in the Government itself, 
in political as well as in legal questions." What else than 
legal or political questions could it adjudicate ? So that the 
lusty wings of Congress get a clipping which will keep that 
most dangerous of all our Agencies from ascending far towards 
supremacy. 

With that relief, we can now pass upon " Another ground " in 
[35]"*^, where the heart becoming somewhat restive, it mutters 
something about " the people who granted it." But the head at 
once throttles the pusillanimous creature beneath him, adding, 
— " and who, for all purposes of upholding the Constitution 
and protecting the life and welfare of the nation under it, are 



§ 39.] Mr. Loving makes Congress the Supreme Government. 161 

represented by the General Government, which is invested with 
plenary and final power to determine all questions arising under 
it." With the italics of our Author, who is he that dares to 
question that? Alas, for the poor heart ! 

" All analogy sustains this view of the subject," says Mr. 
Loring, [36]'i. His first illustration begins, " In all cases of con- 
tract, founded upon conditions, breach of the conditions is finally 
fatal to all rights under it." As a learned lawyer he will admit, 
that to have a contract, there must be parties to it. He would 
never aver that the Constitution — the instrument itself — was 
a party ; much less that the Government created by the Consti- 
tution, could be a party. Then who are the parties, or either of 
them ? Surely the State is not a party, nor any of them ; for 
the State is made up of its Citizens ; and " it would be strange 
indeed, if criminals thus under the ban of the law, as having for- 
feited all their personal rights, including that of life itself, mav 
still retain, in their political corporate capacity as a State, their 
privileges and power of participation in the administration of 
the government which they sought and may be still seeking to 
destroy," — read on in loco. 

These are very practical suggestions, we repeat. But as upon 
their prior presentation, we needed the law applicable, so here we 
must have the law, to ascertain the legal parties to this " con- 
tract," to know to whom to apply the law. General principles 
are well in their place, especially upon subjects in general ; but 
when they are not to be applied to a " General Government," 
but the parties to a contract are to be determined, the principles 
and the law, too, must be made more specific than general. So 
that our Author, apparently seeking in vain to ascertain the par- 
ties to the contract; and well understanding as a State-rights 
Democrat (in his heart), that unless the parties to the contract 
which institutes the Government could be ascertained, the con- 
tract could never be enforced ; the heart finds vent for its grief 
— which is all the tyrant of the head allows — in the concluding 
sentence. 

The efficacy of "general principles" has been pretty effectu- 
ally demonstrated ; and now [37]'2, introduces us to " anothei 
and broader view of this subject, in the light of the great prin- 
ciples upon which the Constitution was founded." Truly does 
[^4pi present "another and broader view;" and the ideas must 
be " great" if at all " principles "; for they are crushing to the 
11 



162 Reply to Mr. Loring iqxm " Reconstruction ^ [T. 2. 

entire structure of political science, and even to the " Laws of 
Nature and of Nature's God,'* upon which the science is based. 
If '' such rules are of inevitable necessity," that operate " with- 
out much, if any, regard to the fundamental question of interven- 
tion, or [even] of right and wrong between the parties, or the 
purposes for which they were made; and with none, if a techni- 
cal rule can be found decisive of the question ; " — if there exist 
such PRINCIPLES as that in the foundation of hiiman society, it 
is quite time to have them investigated and ajiprehended. If 
they "in the long run subserve the cause of justice," we ought 
to be in their pursuit; for they are a long ways ahead of the sup- 
posed teachers in political science ; and even our God neglected 
to give us any such instructions. The Preacher must have an- 
ticipated this when he said — 

Lo ! this only have I found, that God hath made man upric:lit : but they have 
sought out many inventions. — Eccl. vii. 29. 

One might imagine that as " A Constitution of national gov- 
ernment demands more than mere obedience to rules of law 
founded upon domestic expediency," (as before presented [4]'^) : 
it would be difficult to supersede that in the institution of States 
or Nations. Not at all. Our Author goes directly on to aver, 
[38]'-, " But a contract creating a nation, .... and to preserve 
the life of a nation, calls for very different rules -of construction." 
The argument is a little mysterious, inasmuch as the difference 
between '' a constitution of national government," and " a con- 
tract creating a nation," is not duly evolved ; so that we are 
compelled to trust either "the general " or " the great principles," 
with which we are supposed to be familiarly acquainted, to learn 
why the latter calls for "very different rules of construction." A 
little transposition, however, gives us the argument : " But a 
contract creating a nation," as it " calls for very different rules 
of construction," " must have controlling influence over all other 
principles, if in conflict with them;" for "the foundation princi- 
ples of self-preservation " are at stake ; and this " is fully recog- 
nized as one of established law in all civilized communities." 

Then it should be easy for Mr. Loring to give us the law; and 
all the more incumbent, because "a contract" being the thing 
in question, the law whereby it is to be construed, involving even 
the right to make the contract, must be produced. Should we 
not then have the law ? But our Author's head is so far elevated 
above ordinary mortals, that a simple illustration of the right of 



§ 39.] Mr. Loring makes Congress the Supreme Government. 168 

one man to thrust another from a plank to save his own life, is 
all-sufficient. What we need to know is, how a man gets that 
right? The right exists not without law, does it ? Give us the 
law, Mr. Loring, and see if it establishes any such principle in 
jurisprudence, as that this Government, a creature of the Consti- 
tution, and a mere Agency by which the Constitution itself is 
operated, has obtained an imprescriptible right of resistance 
to its creator. Show us how even the Constitution itself, 
whereby the Government exists, has any power of resistance or 
of change. 

All the more incumbent is this, because in [67] i-'' our Author 
next declares explicitly — " Now, the Constitution of the United 
States was a compact entered into by the inhabitants of the 
United States for the declared purpose of creating and maintain- 
ing a ' firm national government.' " That truth, the denial of 
which was the one chief error of Massachusetts' great statesman, 
is an important point in my argument; except that I hold it to 
have been a compact between the inhabitants in their capacity 
as States, not as of one consolidated Nation. And inasmuch 
as this "compact" must be understood and construed according 
to law ; and yet " manifestly " not according to " any technical 
rules of construction, ordinarily applied to written contracts in 
private life," — we must have the law applicable. Give us the 
law, then, Mr. Loring. 

" The nation existed as a nation before the Constitution was 
formed. The nation created the Constitution [may not Mr. L. 
be mistaken upon that point and the 7th article of the Constitu- 
tion correct ?] not the Constitution the nation. It [the States] 
constructed that national compact for the more perfect defini- 
tion and distribution of the various rights and powers which 
its [their] citizens possessed, or were intended to possess in 
their individual capacities and in their corporate capacities as 
States ; and to establish a form of government that should be 
competent to protect them [especially the States] in the enjoy- 
ment of those rights and the exercise of those powers " — read 
every one of those sound, soul-stirring words following, and tell 
me if language be not inadequate to anathematize the miscreant, 
who by false, unstable principles, would misconstrue and pervert 
that sacred compact from the high and holy purposes of its ordi- 
nation. The law ! oh, give us the law, Mr. Loring, to save us 
from this horrible sacrilege ! 



164 Rej^ly to Mr. Loring upon " Meconstruction.''^ [T. 2. 

" The Government," too, appeals for the law, in [59]^'''^ ; for 
" Its life is the life of the nation." Read the paragraph ; and 
then tell me, if because Mr. Loring is so learned and sagacious 
" upon the obvious principles," he is at liberty to keep all the 
light and knowledge to himself, and not make it "obvious" to 
us ordinary Citizens also. Give us the law, Mr. Loring. It is 
the bread of life to these Citizens. But instead of bread, he casts 
this stone — compared with which flint is soft: — 

[87® ] In the language of the Report of the majority of the Committee on Re- 
construction, wliich every one desiring to understand tlie subject should know by 
heart, [might not a quotation from the law answer as well to learn by heart ?] — 

" It is more than idle, it is a mockery, to contend that a people who have thrown 
oflF their allegiance, destroyed the local government which bound their States to 
the Union as members thereof, defied its authority, refused to execute its laws, and 
abrogated every provision which gave them political rights within the Union, 
shall retain, through all, the perfect and entire right to resume at their own will 
and pleasure all their privileges within the Union, and especially to participate in 
its Government, and to control the conduct of its officers. To admit such a princi- 
ple for one moment would be to declare that treason is always master, and loyalty 
a blunder. Such a principle is void by its very nature and essence, because incon- 
sistent with the theory of government, and fatal to its own existence." 

What, in the name of reason, has that to do with the discussion 
of " law," — of " principles," either " great " or " general " ? Be- 
cause some benighted Citizen, who from not having made equal 
attainments in the law and in principles, either " general " or 
" great," is led unwisely to advance absurd notions ; and be- 
cause a Committee of Congress sees fit also to take a wind-mill 
tilt; will that oracular effort — even one paragraph — suffice to 
establish all the law and principles requisite to a sound judg- 
ment? That such is our Author's opinion is evident from his 
"therefore" following in [9]^'\ For he observes — " Upon every 
principle, therefore, of public law applicable to a condition of 
peace or war," etc. — read the passage, if you please. 

That concludes Mr. Loring's first paper. 

Have we then, been favored with " every principle of public 
law applicable " ? We have had some curious applications of 
our own fundamental laws or Constitutions, the Declaration of 
Independence, etc. ; and that one extract from Vattel, to which 
our Author is so devoted that he quotes it again in his second 
paper. So that to call spirits of the law or of principle from this 
vasty deep would be idle. To the most earnest appeal, the hol- 
low echo answers — Where ? 

But this summary having taken twice the space designed, 



9 39.] Mr. Loring makes Congress the Supreme Government. 165 

we must proceed in our task with what lights we have, to dem- 
strate the truth of this caption. And I confess, this and the 
preceding sections are an after-thought, interpolated in conse- 
quence of the pernicious heresy of Mr. boring's second paper, 
Part 11. of his pamphlet. One would imagine the first would 
have been too revolting and nauseous for a State-rights Dem- 
ocrat to endure, much more to father ; but the second ought to 
be offensive to a vulture or hyena. Yet such is this feast of 
reason to which we are invited. 

That our Author's intent should not be misunderstood, he 
announces distinctly in his opening paragraph, [5]*, — " It hav- 
ing been attempted in the previous article upon this subject, to 
maintain affirmatively the right of Congress," etc. That is his 
object. So perverted is the head of this State-rights Democrat, 
that he not only endeavors to put the Sovereignty out of the 
People of each State, into the People of the United States ; but 
he also puts it into the Constitution, the mere instrument of con- 
veyance of authority; and worse still, into the governmental 
Agency created by that instrument. And all this is a mere 
shift, a process of hocus-pocus — "now you see it, now you 
don't " — to get the Sovereignty into one Department of the two 
Governments instituted by these States for their convenience and 
safety, — Congress! Having distinctly announced that he had 
endeavored " to maintain affirmatively the right of Congress," 
Mr. Loring proceeds to consider the antagonistic views, resulting 
in the consideration of premises and conclusions in [Cf. Two 
of the propositions of his opponents are considered, from which 
« the further conclusion is logically inevitable," in [Ef'^. Other 
premises of his opponents are presented, followed with the re- 
marks of \D\\ and [-0]^^ which lead to the summary dismissal 
of the false premises, in \_FfK But it affords an instructive ex- 
ample of the pernicious influence of erroneous theories and un- 
sound premises upon the very best of men ; that this honest, 
discreet advocate, is led to substitute the word " Congress " for 
» Government," as though they were convertible terms. So that 
our Author hit his own case exactly in the concluding paragraph 
of [Z)]'. For that follows [HJ*^^ which describes the process 
of State suicide. 

So, these inconvenient things of premises being laid aside, 
our Author favors us with this caption and beginning of Chap- 
ter II. : — 



166 Reply to Mr. Loring upon '•'■Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

[88^1] Asserted Constitutional Limits to Powers of Conf/ress. — Theory that the People of 
the late Rebel States are entitled to complete immediate Restoration. 

But the position doubtless mainly relied upon in denial of the right of Congress to 
enforce any terms upon the inliabitants of the rebel States as conditions of restora- 
tion, is, that the right of the Government of the United States to subdue the rebel- 
lion was a constitutional riyht, which can be lawfully exercised only " uitliin the limits 
of the powers conferred In/ the Constitution ; " and that this right is thus confined to the 
subjugation of tlie rebellion, and the restoration and establishment of the authoritj- 
of the Constitution and the laws of the United States in the rebellious territories ; 
and that, when such restoration and establishment have taken place, — by whatever 
means, — the inhabitants become ipso facto, as matter of riijht, entitled to re-organiza- 
tion as States under the Constitution, and to the innnediate enjoyment of their 
former political powers and privileges conferred by it ; and hence, that no terms of 
indemnit}' for the past or security for the future, however mild or generous, or 
however reasonable, can be exacted. 

As in the beginning of the previous chapter, [jB]*, Congress is 
here made the possessor and exerciser of all the powers of Sov- 
ereignty. But as " government" is better suited to Mr. L.'s hy- 
pothesis, it is ingeniously slipped in as an interchangeable term, 
so that whatever " the General Government '' may do. Congress 
may do. It is a shrewd way our legal Author has, to take the 
reader along with him to the acknowledgment of the Sovereignty 
of Congress. The same ingenuity is exhibited in the paragraphs 
succeeding, [ Q]^'". Another erroneous theory, " that the south- 
ern States are now as rightfully, and should be as effectively, in 
the Union as they were before the madness of their people at- 
tempted to carry them out of it ; " instead of being disposed of 
according to law, is destroyed by the practical appeal to facts, 
[95]^"^ The appropriate summing up [2^]^^^ concludes that 
chapter, in the third paragraph of which "Congress" is again 
spoken of as a correlative of" Government.'" 

Chapter III., however, with the caption, " Right of Govern- 
ment as Conqueror to dictate Terms of Peace,''^ shows that we 
have a Government " worth dying for and living under." [^]'^» 
[Lj"*5 and [i^]^'', give us the argument, and [.7j"^ brings us again 
to THE Law ! The very satisfactory reason why no more law 
is offered for consideration, is given, !/]"'; and "the funda- 
mental principles" are applied in [iV]"' and [ ?7]^i^ This brings 
Mr. Loring to the one eminent point in his argument, which he 
demonstrates to perfection. Tiie chief wonder is that any of 
his legal brethren should be so stupid as to render argument at 
all necessary upon a point so self-evident as that a State could 
and should conquer itself. These are the absurd notions which 
our Author was at the trouble of refuting : — 



§ 39,] Mr. Loving makes Congress the Supreme Government. 167 

[89''^] What, then, are the reasons urged in denial of this right 1 So far as they 
can be gathered from this letter, and the minority Report, and other publications, 
they are thus related : — 

■• When the war has ceased, when the authority of the Constitution and laws of the 
United States have been restored and established, the United States are in possession, not 
under a new title as conquerors, but under their old title as the lawful Government of the 
country; that title has been vindicated, not by the destruction of one or more States, but by 
their preservation, and this preserv^ation can onlj- be entered into by the restoration of re- 
publican governments organized in harmony with the Constitution." 

•' Conquest of a foreign country gives absolute unlimited sovereign rights; but no nation 
ever makes such a conquest of its own territory. If a hostile power, eitlier from witliout or 
within, takes and holds possession and dominion over any portion of its territory, and the 
nation by force of arms expel or overthrow the enemy, and suppress hostilities, it acquires 
no new title, and merely regains the possession of that of which it was temporarily deprived. 
Tiie nation acquires no new sovereignty, but merely maintains its previous rights." 

•' When the United States take possession of a rebel district, they merely vindicate their 
preexisting title. Under despotic governments, confiscation may be unlimited; but, under 
our Government, the right of sovereignty over any portion of a State is given and lim- 
ited by the Constitution, and will be the same after the war as before." 

Observe, neither Mr. Loring nor his contestants stand upon 
my ground of iState rights, but upon their common ground of 
National Sovereignty, The argument follows in this order, 
[Of% [GY\ [SY"- Then, under seven heads, the results are 
considered " if the rebels had realized their hopeful anticipa- 
tions ; " and [3/]''' takes us to " the conclusion is obvious," and 
to " another logical result." Another paragraph beginning, 
" Such are the clearly inevitable logical results," etc., concludes 
that chapter ; and while Mr. L, has argued a good deal about 
the rights and powers of " the General Government," where has 
he shown the slightest application of his views to Congress ? 

And now Chapter IV,, in conclusion, takes us to the gist of 
the argument, under this caption : — 

[dO^"^] Asserted Poiutrs of the President, as the Executive Head of the Government and 
as Commander-in-chief, to decide upon the Rights of the Rebel States to immediate 
Restoration. 

A theory is presented, styled the " President's policy," which 
is sound indisputably, if Mr. Loring's main premise of National 
Sovereignty be tenable, — and that is their common ground — 
which is thus controverted: — 

[9111'] It would be difficult to exaggerate the alarming and dangerous nature of 
this doctrine, if it could be successfully maintained. It might well startle the na- 
tion to find that the power of final decision upon the relations subsisting between 
the inhabitants of the rebel States and the national Government, and between them 
and the other States in the Union, growing out of such a gigantic civil war as that 
through which we are passing, and the adjustment of which relations must vitally 
affect the nature, the safety, and the strength of tliat Government for ages to come, 
if not for ever, rests wholly in one individual ; and that the representatives of the 
people are voiceless and powerless to control or affect it. 



168 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

No one can bolieve tliat power of such tremendous import would ever have been 
intentionally vested in the executive liead of the Government alone, by the franiers 
of the Constitution, if the exigency had been foreseen, etc. 

That th(^ fathers feared the Executive, the one-man power, is 
undeniable ; and it was one of the chief points of assault. But 
the practical wisdom of those eminent statesmen caused them 
to put their chief restrictions upon that which they knew to be 
most dangerous, the Legislative Department. Not only was it 
divided into two bodies, but also the Executive was given a 
veto. And while in war the tremendous powers could be wielded 
greatly to individual aggrandizement ; with a return to peace 
and to law, the dangers lie chiefly with the law-making power. 
Is it not equally " alarming and dangerous " that Congress 
should transcend its authority, as for the President to do the 
wrong? Responsibility in a body of men is less felt than. in 
individual action ; and men united will often do things that 
would shock them individually.^ The safety of our system lies 
in this division of power to coordinate and independent De- 
partments ; and as we now see and feel, the Legislature is the 
most dangerous. Mr. Loring proceeds to show the impropriety 
of giving " to the Executive Department alone," the decision 
of questions devolving upon " the Genei-al Government." And 
is it not j)ossible that upon some questions, all the Departments 
combined, which constitute "the General Government," may 
be unauthorized to act? Why and how is the Executive lim- 
ited? And our Author with usual practical good sense dis- 
cusses this subject : — 

[92^] Before proceeding to consider the various reasons which are believed 
sufficient to prove this theory to be wholly untenable, it is necessary to have a clear 
and distinct understanding of the two elements or principles upon which alone it is 
made to rest; namely, the executive power and the military power of the Presi- 
dent. These two powers, although often, as in this case, confounded together, as 
jointlj' conferring authority which neither singly could give, are totally distinct and 
inde{)endent, and are utterly unsusce])tible of any fusion or commingling, so as to 
produce a result which neither could alone etlect. And, if the authority claimed 

1 I have not the fear of the destruction of our system which many have, from llie wrong- 
conduct of Congress. They may connuit great wrongs, and are specially tempted to do so 
by the Radicals having sufficient power to outride the Presidential veto. Impeachment 
may be attempted, and it may be carried out. The Supreme Court even may be directed 
to make its decisions satisfactory to the law-making power; and vnider the present system, 
and its weakest spot, the Judiciary may be remodelled. Still, these Senators and Repre- 
sentatives are our fellow-Citizens, and with us will suffer the consequences of misrule. As 
the evils are felt, they will be individually inquiring the why and wlieretbre; and a study of 
the principles of our (tovernments, and learning their nature, will bring us ultimately to 
the proper conduct of State and National affairs. 



§ 39.] Mr. Loving makes Congress the Supreme Government. 169 

for the President cannot be deduced from eitlier taken singly, it cannot be from 
the two combined. Two ciphers cannot make a unit, nor can any multiplication 
of them. 

Precisely so ; and as the Executive is manifestly restricted to 
its letter of authority, is not Congress also ? Because they are 
Representatives of the People, are they irresponsible to the Peo- 
ple ? May they usurp powers not delegated, any more than the 
President? Does not the 10th amendment apply at all to Con- 
gress ? Is it not reasonable that in such an unforeseen condition 
of affairs as this, that the People, the People by States, should 
have to determine upon what is right and best to be done ? Will 
these Senators and Representatives establish themselves as an 
irresponsible oligarchy, assuming entire direction of affairs never 
entrusted to them ? I have no such fear myself of these honor- 
able fellow-Citizens ; but they need more knowledge of political 
affairs than any of their predecessors, and to guard against un- 
intentional errors, must well study principles. 

|-7^jii5 shows that our Author understands " correlative terms," 
which is followed by further discussion of Executive power, 
wherein we have this positive declaration : — 

[OSi'*^'] No principle of public law is more undeniable or more universally recog- 
nized, than that the decision of all the possible legal relations of the citizen to the 
Government, individually or politically, are primarily within the sole and exclusive 
jurisdiction and rule of the political or legislative department of it ; and are never, 
under any circumstances, within the scope of the executive or of the military power, 
excepting when invoked for enforcement of the laws concerning them. And nothing 
can be clearer than that any questions concerning the relations created by the Con- 
stitution between the people of the several States, or the States in their corporate 
capacities, and the Government of the United States ; or between the individual 
States and the other States in the Union, as those relations existed before the rebel- 
lion ; and concerning any changes or effects upon such relations, caused by the re- 
bellion ; and concerning the right and power of the Government to exact indemnity 
of the rebel States, and to impose terms or conditions of restoration to their former 
political powers and privileges, — are purely questions of constitutional law, of 
which the political or legislative department of the Government has primarily ex- 
clusive jurisdiction. And no more flagrantly unconstitutional usurpation of author- 
ity can be conceived of, than for the President, as the executive head of the Gov- 
ernment, or as the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to assume the right 
of deciding upon tliem as pertaining to him in either of those capacities. Cases 
doubtless may arise in which it may be impossible seasonably to determine to which 
branch of the Government a question demanding immediate decision may belong ; 
and, in such case, an executive officer may be justifiable in deciding it upon his own 
responsibihty. But where no reasonable doubt can exist, that it is one, the decision 
of which pertains exclusively to the political department of the Government, he 
can have no justification in acting upon it in opposition to the decision of that de- 
partment, however clear may be his conviction that such decision is erroneous and 
unwarranted by a true construction of the Constitution. The responsibility rests 
wholly upon that department, and in no degree upon him. He might with equal 



170 Rejjly to 3Ir. Loring upon " Reconstruction." [T. 2. 

propriety exert his executive or military power to reverse a judgment of the Su- 
preme Court, and substitute his sense of justice in place of it, as thus to infringe 
upon and oppose tlie jurisdiction of the General Government. 

Whv that disjunctive between " political " and " legislative," 
in that first sentence? Are they not " correlatives " ? Is not 
every sort of Legislature a " political " body ? (It is not neces- 
sary to inquire if every " political " body is " legislative," be- 
cause our Author after once more using the terms " political or 
legislative department," obtains full assurance that " jioliticnl " 
expresses all the idea desirable, and " legislative " is dropped as 
useless verbiage.) Of course, then, " political " means " legisla- 
tive," and " legislative " means " political." Then, too, our chief 
Legislature is undoubtedly Congress; and inasmuch as these 
questions " of restoration to their former political powers and 
privileges, are purely questions of constitutional law, of which 
the political or legislative department of the Government has 
primarily exclusive jurisdiction," does it not follow, of logical 
necessity, that the power belongs absolutely to Congress ? 
There is as little trust to the science of logic as to that of poli- 
tics, if that be not demonstrated. Upon this solid basis Mr. 
Loring proceeds : — 

[94^1**] Again, during .and upon the termination of the rebellion, tlie people of 
the rebel States, as has been shown, and as is conceded in this letter, Avere utterly 
disorganized, and without governments which could entitle them to political rights 
as States in the Union ; and could only be re-organized as such States by the con- 
sent of the Government of the United States, on its determination that the proper 
time for such re-organization had come, and of wjiich the Government is confess- 
edly the sole judge. 

But it is obvious, that, in deciding upon the right of such restoration and the re- 
ception of the representatives of such State into the councils of the nation, the es- 
sential preliminary question must be decided, wliether the Government thus organ- 
ized is a republican form of government, and otherwise in harmony with the requi- 
sitions of the Constitution. And it is equally clear, that any sucli question is not only, 
in its nature, purely political, but that the decision of it is, by the express terms of 
the Constitution, delegated exclusively to Congress. Upon what principle, then, 
can it be contended that the President alone, as the executive head of the Govern- 
ment or as conunander in-chief of its forces, is authorized definitely to settle that 
question, and to recognize the rebel States as entitled to all their political rights and 
privileges, as, upon this theory in question, he is entitled to do? Can a more ])al- 
pable substitution of military or executive authority, in place of the political author- 
ity established b}' the Constitution, be conceived of? 

A flimsy objection is then considered, " that no authority is 
found in the Constitution," etc. But triumphantly is it an- 
nounced that " duty and necessity of passing judgment, .... 
must, as above shown, devolve upon Congress alone." 



§ 39.] Mr. Loving maken Congress the Supreme Government. 171 

The discussion of the nature of our war and its results, were 
quoted [Pf^, from whence Mr. Loring thus argues : — 

[951-^1] To maintain that tlie executive head of tlie Government, by virtue of 
his office, has sole authority to determine upon the termination of such a war, and 
finally to decide upon its consequences upon the political relations of the parties to 
it, and the terms of peace, all which is necessarily involved in tliis theory, — and 
equally so whether lie undertakes to dictate terms of peace, or to decide that none 
can be constitutionally demanded — seems to vest in the President a stretcli of ex- 
ecutive authority' utterly abhorrent from anj- rational construction of the Constitu- 
tion, or any conceivable theory of representative government. 

A state of war can only be terminated by a treaty of peace, express or implied. 
Usually between foreign nations, formal written stipulations are executed, and de- 
termine the time and conditions of its cessation. Where unconditional submission 
lias been exacted, the rights of war continue on the part of the victor, until he has 
pronounced upon the future political condition of the conquered ; and that, if unre- 
sisted, constitutes the final treaty of peace. So liere the war, declared by Con- 
gress, — which alone has the power to declare war, — can only cease when the 
terms of peace shall have been finally resolved upon ; and, until then, the rebels 
are under the military authority of the Government, excejiting in so far as it may 
see fit to relieve them from the immediate exercise of such authority, during its 
pleasure. But peace will not have terminated the war, until it shall have been de- 
cided on what terms the rebel States shall be restored to the Union, or that no terms 
can or shall be exacted. And that decision cannot rest with the Executive. In 
the case of a foreign war, it would be the duty of the Senate, acting in concert with 
the Executive, to determine on what terms the war should cease, or, in other 
words, when and how peace should be made. But in a civil war like this, where 
the fundamental relations of the people of the rebel States to the Constitution and 
the laws are involved, it is plain that the only departmcirts which have cognizance 
of them, or can decide them, are the political or judiciary departments. The idea 
tliat the commander-in-chief of the forces of a Government, acting merely as such, 
can decide the question when a war declared by the authority of Congress has 
ended, and its purposes have been accomplished, is too absurd to require refutation. 
He is the mere servant or instrument of the Government in carrying on the war ; 
and must prosecute it, and continue the exercise of military authority against and 
over the enemy, whatever may be his individual opinion, until the Government 
decide the war to be ended by agreeing upon terms of peace. Nor, upon examina- 
tion, is the idea that the Executive Department of the Government can decide such 
a question in the case of a war like this any more tenable, it having been shown 
that such decision necessarily involves the determination of many other questions 
purely political and constitutional, of which tlie Executive Department has no 
jurisdiction. 

In conclusion, whatever questions might be raised concerning the powers of Con- 
gress, or of the Executive in ordinary cases of insurrection, it is believed that in 
the case of a war declared by Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, 
and which power is not hmited by the Constitution to a foreign, but applies, with 
equal reason, to a civil war of a magnitude to require its interposition, — and in 
view of the unusual restraints imposed by the Constitution of the United States 
upon the Executive in relation to all matters of peace and war, — it is believed that 
no reasonable doubt can exist, that the President has no authority whatever to de- 
cide upon the terms or conditions of peace, or upon those of the restoration of the 
belligerents subdued by force of arms to their former political rights and privileges 
in the Union. 
Many other arguments might be adduced in support of the authority claimed by 



172 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reeonstmction.^^ [T. 2. 

Congress, and there are doubtless otliers in defence of the President's policy which 
have not been particularly noticed in the preceding remarks. 

It is believed, however, that the main points on both sides have been considered 
as fully as the nature of a publication of this sort will permit, and that they em- 
brace in substance the merits of the question before the country. The author is 
conscious that tiiere is a limit to the patience of readers, and beyond which he has 
great apprehension that he has already transgressed. 

However else I may have failed, has not Mr. Loring proved 
for me the truth of this caption ? 

As to answering the argument whereby Congress" is made 
The Political Power of our country, I am not so conceited 
as to suppose myself adequate. The ordinary run of the argu- 
ment, by dint of hard study, has been beaten into me, enthy- 
memes, non sequiturs and all. But the subject is a serious one, 
is seriously treated by our Author, and must be seriously dis- 
cussed by me, if at all. And I am not in a sufficiently serious 
mood to do the subject justice. Besides, the concluding words 
above admonish me, that if there were any danger of that 
Author's trying " the patience of readers," it is much augmented 
in the case of this Author. 

Nor does it make any considerable difference as to my object 
in entering the discussion, whether Mr. Loring be correct in his 
conclusion or not. K Congress be indeed The Political Power 
of our country, then each Senator and Representative, and his 
every constituent, wants to know exactly what it is right and 
best to do in this critical condition of our political affairs. To do 
that, it is very evident that we must on all sides resort more to 
the principles of political science than has yet been done ; and 
if this essay in any measure aids that cause, my prime object 
will have been accomplished. 

If any other Consolidist thinks he can improve upon Mr. Lor- 
ing's argument, let him make the endeavor. I certainly have 
never seen its equal upon the main premise of the Sovereignty 
of the United States. Mr. L.'s prudence and wisdom, it is 
proper to repeat, are particularly observable, in avoiding the 
hackneyed use of " We, the People of the United States," in 
the preamble, as affording any evidence of National Sover- 
eignty. Most Consolidators make these words all-sufficient to 
prove that we are absolutely a consolidated Nation, and that 
the one Sovereign People of the United States is the source of 
all grants of authority. When their views are once cleared of 
the absurdity of a divided Sovereignty, and of the nonsense of 



§ 39.] 3Ir. Loring makes Congress the Supreme Government. 173 

a Sovereignty in the Government itself — this mere machinery 
whereby the Sovereignty operates, — and the truth is realized 
which every Democrat ought instinctively to apprehend, that the 
Sovereignty is absolutely in the People, and must there be kept ; 
the dispute narrows down to the one point, as to what consti- 
tutes the People of the Sovereign State, whether it be the Peo- 
ple of each State, or the People of the United States. Upon 
this main question it will be found that — 

§ 40. Mr. Loring's Difficulties are less than others'. 

However difficult may be Mr. Loring's task to maintain his 
premises, it is easy compared with that of others who contend 
that the Sovereignty is divided, and do not hold to the preexist- 
ence of the Nation of the United States. Mr. Loring's argument 
seems weakest upon the National Sovereignty under the Articles 
of Confederation. The second of them, and the prominent in- 
efficiency of the Government they created, render the Sover- 
eignty of the United States very questionable ; so that in ex- 
tract [19 1^2 even Mr. Loring himself admits that the Citizens 
" owed personal allegiance to the State only." Yet his con- 
struction of the powers of the Continental Congress, and now 
of this supreme National Government, is quite consistent. One 
has only to set aside the self-evident meaning, the positive decla- 
rations of our fundamental documents, together with these 
obsolete notions of Pufendorf, etc., to render our system at once 
sufficiently unique and incomprehensible to satisfy any Jacobin. 
But his view is not palpably absurd as that must be, which 
begins not with the necessary ground-work of the United States 
Sovereignty preexistent to that of the States, and yet fancies a 
Sovereignty has since been acquired by the Federal Govern- 
ment, or by the United States as one People, a consolidated 
State. 

This is not affirmed without due consideration. My first 
writings upon this subject were an examination of Mr. Everett's 
oration 4th July, 1861, Mr. Motley's celebrated letter to the 
" London Times," and Mr. Curtis' well studied History of the 
Constitution, in which the historical part is so well executed, 
that it corrects the theoretic. Four years more of study con- 
firm those earlier opinions, which will be published when public 
interest in the investigation shall justify it. If at all a success, 
the documents and facts will put an effectual extinguisher upon 



174 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction.''' [T. 2. 

aijy indt^pendent Nationality, and especially of Sovereignty, of 
the United States, subsequent to the Confederation ; proving 
that if ever possessed, it must have been from the beginning. 

Mr. Loring makes the utmost use of the Constitution that is 
possible, to favor Consolidation, applying various parts thereto, 
as we have seen, with effective boldness not to be surpassed. 
That and other applications of words and phrases in support of 
the Sovereignty of the United States, seem somewhat question- 
able ; but no other Consolidist whose writings have come under 
examination, has used them more dexterously and effectively. 
Any of them who may find fault with Mr. Loring's argument, 
should try their hand at the work ; and if they do not floor 
themselves, or else come, in the main, to adopt his hypothesis, 
they will surely be entitled to credit for originality of view, and 
high ingenuity. The loftiest kind of lofty tumbling will be wdt- 
nessed, if they can more skilfully jump over documents and 
principles. And in a tilt, his Rosinante of preexisting National 
Sovereignty, will certainly have to be pressed into the service. 
No true-hearted Consolidist can make headway upon any other 
charger. 

As before intimated, most Consolidators, less discreet than 
Mr. Loring, rest their claims upon the preamble of the Consti- 
tution. The previous Government they acknowledge to have 
been a mere Confederation, for which too much contempt can- 
not be manifested in their judgment ; but in place of that, " We, 
the People of the United States," ordained a genuine Consiitii- 
tion, and created a firm National Government. But as Mr. 
Loring avoids this tenet of National Sovereignty, weakest of all 
to any one familiar with the Madison Papers, its consideration 
would here be out of place. It will be more appropriate in 
this connection to consider a topic rather distasteful to honest 
patriots like our Author. Yet however offensive to them, it 
seems certain that — 

§ 41. The one Issue is distinctly Federalism or Consol- 
idation. 

Mr. Loring, as we have seen, while arguing so tenaciously 
for the Sovereignty of the United States, and for the prior ex- 
istence of that Nation to the States, in order to render that Sov- 
ereignty sure, has no idea of affirming positive, total Consolida- 
tion. With Madison, he actually wants our system to be 



§ 41.] Tlie 07)6 Issue is distinctly Federalism or Consulidation. 175 

"partly Federal, partly National;" though he seems to have 
had too correct apprehension of principles, to have avowed 
the absurdity. But the primary lessons in political truth will 
exhibit the utter impossibility of any such nondescript, as a 
People being partly a State, and partly not a State ; as having 
Sovereignty for certain purposes, and not having it for others.^ 
It will be found that there are but two sorts of political 
union, so to say, one Federal, the other Consolidated; and 
any mixture is impossible. And much more distinctly than in 
1800, is the issue now made between Federalism and Consoli- 
dation. 

Notwithstanding this assertion, however, the general belief of 
the North and of a large part of the South is, that our Govern- 
ment might be and actually is "partly Federal, and partly Na- 
tional." Madison seems to have been the originator of the 
notion, the error of which has been sufficiently considered in a 
previous pamphlet, Citizenship, Sovereignty, until it can be 
treated methodically. In my proposed work it shall be thor- 
oughly analyzed and traced to its source, which will be found To 
be Pufendorf, as stated in preceding notes. A repetition of these 
views already published would not be expected here, yet I would 
like to have them taken into consideration. I would also be 
glad to avail myself of the principles of political science, here- 
in before presented, in discussing this topic, which would be 
specially applicable. Yet, our fundamental documents and in- 
signia will be found abundantly adequate to maintain this 
thesis, equally with those preceding. 

The Constitution of Massachusetts precludes the idea of con- 
solidation. The Citizens by compact create " themselves into a 

1 A friend, examining the proofs of these pages, remarks, that 1 make the laws of political 
science arbitrary; that he cannot see why the People of a town, of a county, and of the 
United States, are not equally sovereign in their spheres as the People of a State. 

I can give no reason why it is not possible thus to divide up Sovereignty, except that it 
is contrary to political science. The civilized world receives as the basis of politics, the teach- 
ings of the Bible and Aristotle; and they and their followers make the State the primal 
source of authority. A new system may be invented that will supplant the old; but until 
it shall be pretty well advanced towards perfection, will we not be wise to trust to what 
(iou has revealed to us, and to the science which the wisest and best of men have evolved 
irom that Bible, and from "the Laws ol Nature?" In our present difficulties, do these 
practical Citizens care so much about speculating as to what might be done, as to learn 
precisely what has been done, and what are the established rules which ought to govern 
States and Nations? These, it is true, are arbitrary; and can you imagine a law, even one 
from Heaven, that is not arbitrary? The trouble with human laws is not that they are 
arbitrary, but that they are based upon imperfect knowledge of principles, and too much 
affected bv selfishness. 



176 Reply to Mr. Lormg upon '■^Reconstruction.'' [T. 2. 

free, sovereign and independent body politic or State, by the 
name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Not a word 
permits the possibility of consolidation with the Citizens of the 
otiier States, for they go on to provide for a union with them as 
States. The articles of Confederation were already drawn, and 
were well known, the second of which contained the explicit 
reservation of Sovereignty, which was quoted, p. 51. 

Under the Articles of Confederation, then, it is not possible 
that we could have been partly consolidated. Most writers 
admit this, and rest their claims upon the preamble of the Con- 
stitution, as before observed. But there is no half-way work 
about that. It says nothing about our being partly a Nation, 
and partly not a Nation. It goes the whole figure, and if the 
expression " We the People of the United States," has any bear- 
ing in favor of the least consolidation, it makes it entire. If as 
one People we framed and adopted the Constitution, then we are 
wholly, positively consolidated; and there is and can be no half- 
way work about it. 

But that proves too much for Mr. Lori ng, which perhaps is 
the reason that he avoids its use, for he only wants us to be 
partly a Nation. The 7th article, however, will help our Au- 
thor to prove that we are not wholly consolidated, for that de- 
clares explicitly that the Constitution is "established between 
the States ;'' not between the individual Citizens as was the 
Constitution of Massachusetts. And then again, Mr. Loring 
consistently argues upon that 10th amendment, that the reserve 
is partly to the States, and partly to the whole People of the 
United States. But then what a discrepancy is made between 
this amendment and that 7th article, and the preamble ! That 
says " We the People of the United States," and th(>re is no 
possible reference to these subordinate States, any more than to 
the counties and towns. One might, it is true, hold on to both 
horns of the dilenuna, but would he not be safer to hold hard to 
one? Doubtless Mr. Loring perceives the bull of those other 
Consolidists; and instead of like them taking an antagonistic 
position boldly in front, endeavoring to hold both horns, he 
dexterously places himself beside the animal, holding with both 
hands firmly to one horn. But he is dealing with a bull, he will 
find ; a geimine dilenuna with two horns, either or both of which 
will slightly elevate him. The Constitution is to be taken entire, 
the preamble as well as the rest, and that declares positively that 



§ 41.] TJie one Issue is distinctly Federalism or Consolidation. 177 

it is "We the People of the United States" which ordained 
the Constitution ; and unless it have the meaning which other 
Consolidists give it, there is not the first virord in the Constitu- 
tion implying that we are this consolidated Nation, which Mr. 
Loring affirms us to be. And the other horn, the 7th article, 
declaring with equal explicitness that the Constitution is estab- 
lished " between the States,'' not between the Citizens of the 
United States, that must be equally held to, and we cannot be 
this consolidated Nation of the United States, for which Mr. 
Loring argues. 

Still, this is only additional evidence of the conrectness of the 
caption of § 40 ; for if the Constitution do not make us at least 
partly consolidated, Mr. Loring's hypothesis, of a preexisting Na- 
tionality in the United States, must be adopted to give any show 
for consolidation. But in obtaining this advantage over his co- 
adjutors, Mr. Loring is forced to admit them to be right in their 
use of the words " We the People ; " for if we are consolidated, the 
words are natural and proper; and, if they have any bearing 
upon the question of consolidation, afford proof positive that we 
are not jjcirtli/ but wholly consolidated ; which is more than Mr. 
l^oring wants. Yet, as we see, there can be no half way work 
about it; and as Mr. Loring gets a tossing upon one horn as 
well as the other, and upon both as well as one, would he not do 
well to drop them and run upon my safe ground of Federalism ? 

But claiming equal right with Mr. Loring to affirm as to the 
meaning of that 10th amendment, I say, that no essential change 
was made in it from that proposed by the Convention of Massa- 
chusetts, by whom it was recommended ; and first, as I remem- 
ber. Not having books and papers at hand for reference, is my 
excuse for not thoroughly sifting the subject. But may I not 
inquire, if the wise men of Massachusetts, who insisted, as we 
have seen, upon these amendments, chief of which was this very 
one, were such simpletons as not to perceive the change, which 
was fundamental, if Mr. L. proclaims the truth? From being 
so afraid of Consolidation that only 19 majority could be ob- 
tained for the Constitution, even with the strongest assurances 
that the amendments should be made ; had the State in only 
two years become a devotee of Consolidation? Why, then, 
was the name of the street in which the ratifying Convention 
was held, changed in honor thereof from Long- Lane to Federal, 
which it continues to bear ? Why, too, when the State Con- 



178 Reply to 3Ir. Loring upon " Heaonstr action.''^ [T. 2. 

veiition ill 18::20 was culled to amend llie CtJiiislilniion, was not 
llie Irulh recognized, that Massacliusett» had cc^ascd lo be; sow- 
(iccigii, IVee and independent, being only partly bo? And why 
was nothing of the sort proposed in the Convention ol" li!i53, 
which tried to make so many innovations? Would it not 
occupy too much space to present the documents and facts, 
I wonld be glad to prove my allirmation. As it is, it must jjass 
for what it is worth. 

lit', however, who follows the natural reading of thai lOlh 
amendment, coupled with the 7th article, must atlmit that 
the reserve of powers being " /o the States hbspectively ; " 
tlu! atlditional words, "or to the People," must mean the 
People of the States ; because if the whole Peoplt; of the 
United Htates are referred to, the 7th article is wholly wrt)ng. 
But the Constitution itself, to which this amenduuMit relers, and 
which estat)tishes the Government and also the body politic of 
the United Btates, as does the Constitution of Massachusetts 
tlu! body |)olitic of the State; this Constitution being estab- 
lished In-tUH'en aiid not over the Htates, it is incredil)le, that the 
Right of Command, the Sovereignty, should be anywhere else 
than in the People of each State; that is, if the framers of the 
Constitution designed to use, and did use their words accord- 
ing to their usual signification in political science. 

lint how about the escutcheon of the United States? Is that 
partly Federal, partly consolidated .' What nieans E Phiribus 
Unuiii ? When a National Union can be coi\structed, partly 
out of many, partly out of one, the one possessing National 
Sovereignty, and the many constituents also each possessing 
Sovereignty, then may our Union be regarded partly Federal, 
partly National. 

Then the State of my adoption, llliui>is, proclaims upon its 
escutcheon, " State Sovereignty, National Union." The former 
is the basis — not a part of it — upon which the latter rests. 
Proud am I of those noble sentiments of my State, which more 
correctly and forcibly, than any other words that can be put to- 
gether, proclaim the nature and the strength of our Union. Na- 
tional Union you cannot have without State Sovereignti/^ for 
without the latter it is Consolidation. So that State Sover- 
eignty cannot exist in a consolidated Union. Therefore our 
Union cannot be partly consolidated. Is there any non sequitur 
in that? 



§ 41.] Tlie one Issue is distinctly Federalism or Consolidation. 179 

Further, the endeavor to make our central Government partly 
Federal, partly National, involves the difficulty of a divided 
Sovereignty. So far as it is Federal, by compact between the 
States, so far it is admitted that the Sovereignty is in the States ; 
but as to the National features that are imagined, pertaining to 
the whole People of the United States, they rest upon the Sov- 
ereignty of the Nation. That creates a double Sovereignty, the 
Citizens owing allegiance to both. No matter that they are 
supposed to relate to entirely distinct objects ; they run together, 
becoming inseparably involved, so that a man must choose 
which he will serve ; and if there be actually two sources of 
power, two Sovereignties, he is in that unfortunate predicament 
of having to serve two masters, which our Saviour said could 
not be done. 

If, on the other hand, we have only one source of authority, 
one Right of Command, and that has placed over us Govern- 
ments, State and Federal, and in case of clashing, either in 
Constitution or Laws, has enjoined that the Federal " shall be 
the "upreme Law of the land, any thing in the Constitution or 
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding ; " it seems 
to be quite plain, that as faithful liege subjects of our sovereign 
State, we must obey her behest. 

When a universe can have two Gods, a man two souls, then 
can a State have two Sovereignties ; and without reliance upon 
political science to sustain this assertion, is it not reasonable to 
ask of him who claims, against all recognized authorities, to be 
able to create this monstrum horrendum of a State with two 
Sovereignties, to show how it is to be done ? Are the Consol- 
idists, who with more distinctness seek a divided Sovereignty, 
willing to trust the philosophy of Mr. Curtis in his History of 
the Constitution ? He is the only writer that I have found who 
tries at all to reason about the subject ; others cautiously dodg- 
ing it, as does Mr. Loring ; while most think a positive affirma- 
tion about such a trivial point as that we have a divided 
Sovereignty, is all-sufficient for an argument, no matter what 
antiquated writers conceived. But they must begin to rub up 
their philosophy and their logic, for they will soon be called 
upon to demonstrate how a double Sovereignty can exist. The 
contest as in 1800, is to be distinctly for or against Consolida- 
tion; and if there be a middle ground tenable, they will be 
called upon to prove it, or else they will have to side with Fed- 
eralism or Consolidation. 



180 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

The contest in 1800 was merely as to the mode of adminis- 
tration. Now it is to be as to the nature and form of our Gov- 
ernment ; for the Radicals will be found to be right as to the 
fact that our Union is actually broken — is broken de facto, not 
de jure — and needs de facto reconstruction. That is all that 
should be meant by Reconstruction. Whether the central Gov- 
ernment shall be reconstructed on the basis of Federalism or 
Consolidation, is the subject that for several years will more 
than any other engage the attention of these Citizens. It has 
come down to us from the fathers undetermined ; for Sullivan, 
in the preface of his paper, said in 1791 : — 

" Tlie following Observations will no doubt appear labored, and be tiresome to 
some readers at least. They are principally upon the question, Whether the sep- 
arate states, as states, are liable to be called to answer before any tribunal by civil 
process ? and will be very unentertaining to many ; but tlie question is very im- 
portant, for in that is involved the interesting question — Whether we are an as- 
semblage of republics, held together as a nation by the form of government of the 
United States, or one great republic, made up of divers corporations. If the latter 
is the case, it is generally agreed, that our present system of government, however 
agreeable and happy it is, cannot be long continued." — p. vii. 

It is obvious that a republication of those practical " Obser- 
vations," will be very timely ; and coupled with an analysis of 
the decision of the Supreme Court in Chisholm v. Georgia, upon 
the same question, the suability of the States, would aid in as- 
certaining the source of some of our difficulties and errors. So 
that should this paper be received with favor, I shall hope soon 
to publish those and similar works. For — 

§ 42. My Object is less to criticise than to promote 

Examination. 

To properly influence the public mind, the task which I have 
undertaken must be prosecuted in no spirit of carping criticism. 
Says Solomon, according to Stuart's version, — 

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes ; 

But he who hearkeneth to counsel is wise. 

The fool — his vexation is made known at once ; 

But he who concealeth what is shameful is wary. 

He who breatheth forth truth, uttereth that which is right ; 

But a false witness — deceit. 

There are who prate, like the stabbings of a sword ; 

But the tongue of the wise is heaUng. 

The lip of truth shall stand fast forever ; 

But the tongue of falsehood only for the twinkling of an eye. — Prov. xii. 15-19. 

The more perfectly this wisdom is practiced, the more useful 



§ 42.] 3Iy Object is less to criticise than promote Examination. 181 

will any literary effort prove. " Stabbing " words are especially 
inappropriate in any such attempt as this ; for however absurd 
or ridiculous the views controverted may appear, however un- 
naturally, illogically they are deduced from historical facts and 
written documents ; they are not only held in all honesty, sincer- 
ity and patriotism, and that too by our wisest and best states- 
men, some of them being even numbered among the fathers 
themselves ; but they, or others more heretical, are almost univer- 
sally believed either throughout the South or throughout the 
North. My position is therefore very difficult, delicate and crit- 
ical. More than any other, am I exposed to shafts of criticism ; 
and popular judgment would applaud the sharpest and severest, 
for my effrontery in daring to assail the chief teachings of the 
wisest and best of our statesmen. South as well as North. Pru- 
dence, therefore, dictates moderation and care in examining 
others' views. Yet a higher and more appropriate motive should 
actuate in such a work. 

The first requisite to pass judgment upon prevalent political 
opinions of our countrymen, must be a careful study of the 
writings and of the lives of those who founded, expounded, and 
have established this richest heritage of freedom. No man not 
heartless could make such an examination, without esteeming 
and admiring more and more the wonderful skill and practical 
good sense that from the beginning have characterized our course 
in all governmental affairs. 

Where we have erred in theory, it has always been from fol- 
lowing distinguished leaders ; and the more we examine, the more 
surprised and delighted shall we be to find, that theoretic errors 
have not caused more and greater wrongs in practice. So that 
the proverb, — 

He that useth despitefully his neighbor, is one who lacketh understanding ; 
But the man of intelUgence will keep silent, — Prov. xi. 12, — 

was never more appropriate. Though mistakes are discoverable 
in the best of our statesmen and jurists, yet the good outbal- 
ances a thousand-fold, stimulating to correct the wrong, that the 
right may have its legitimate influence ; the importance of which 
increases with the dignity and influence of the author. 

This, at all events, is the spirit and object for and in which my 
labors are prosecuted, and wherein I fail in temper aixl harsh 
utterance, I fall short of my noble object ; and none nobler, more 
heart-inspiring, ever actuated a son. The fathers are my fathers, 



182 Reply to Mr. Loving upon " Reconstruction." [T. 2. 

and have more and more love and reverence the more they are 
known; and the nearer our great men have since followed in 
their footsteps, the more correct have been their counsels, the 
more perfect their administration. 

But the father;^, with all their goodness and wisdom, were but 
fallible men. Living in the period in which infidelity had unset- 
tled all the foundations of society, no less of the State than of 
the Church ; we became too much indoctrinated with prevalent 
notions, which friendship and intimacy with France lamentably 
strengthened. And as we study the parallel histories, we shall 
recognize in our affairs more than human wisdom and goodness, 
in that while we were setting in operation the wheels of our 
new governmental system, which still continues its beneficent 
operation, because we so closely adhered to our National motto, 
E Phiribus Unum; "the Republic one and indivisible" of our 
faithful ally was washed away in the bloody torrent of the 
Reign of Terror. 

But though we have been saved, we became too much im- 
bued with their heresies, equally pervading politics as religion. 
And the fathers themselves originated some errors which have 
led to all our difficulties. As we examine the causes of our vari- 
ance and strife, we shall discern Solomon's wisdom : — 

The simple will credit every report, 

But the wary will give heed to his stops. 

A wise man feareth and turneth away from evil ; 

But the fool is haughty and confident." — Prov. xiv. 15, 16. 

Under our beneficent system, we as individuals have become 
strengthened in devotion to our individual pursuits, but less and 
less informed concerning the principles of our Governments ; and 
no one resorting to any other means of instruction than the Con- 
stitution itself, and the debates and judicial decisions upon it, — 
not a text-book connecting our system with political science ; it 
is no wonder that with such an exciting object of controversy as 
that of slavery, and the direct conflict of opinions between the 
North and the South as to the nature and obligations of our 
National Union, that the errors which began with the fathers 
should have brought us into this awful war. 

And nov^ the question of all questions for us is to understand 
this nature of a National Union based upon State Sovereignty, 
that like calamities may be avoided, and the perpetuity of our 
institutions secured. 



§ 42.] 3Iy Object is less to criticise than promote Examination. 183 

But while endeavoring to ascertain the errors of the North, 
and their causes, in order that they may be remedied and re- 
moved, the examination shall not be one-sided, making only 
the school of Massachusetts and of the North blameworthy. 
So far from it, the chief errors have originated with eminent 
statesmen of the South; and the school of South Carolina is 
responsible for the teachings which led to Secession and war. 
And notwithstanding their errors of theory have led to errors of 
practice which have resulted in our acquiring rights of Conquest, 
they still believe honestly that they were right as to the princi- 
ples of our Government, and that an inscrutable Providence gave 
them defeat in their maintenance of State rights against Consoli- 
dation, and Federal despotism. So that if our National Union 
be based upon State Sovereignty, and is any thing more than a 
rope of sand, rupturable at the will of any of the parties, we 
want to know it, and show that our Union is to be preserved by 
and according to law ; not by mere brute force. Therefore — 

§ 43. These same Principles must be Applied to the 
Correction of Southern Errors. 

Being a very practical People, little given to theoretic specu- 
lations, we look to and value results, rather than the laws govern- 
ing them. Indeed, our study of laws and of theories, is mostly 
with direct view to their immediate application to practice. 
This paper of Mr. Loring's is a natural off-shoot of public senti- 
ments and wants. It is an undistorted reflection of prevalent 
opinions, though the inequalities of different minds cause diver- 
gence of some of the rays as from an unequal surface. It is an 
earnest and honest reaching forth for the truth. Its striking 
characteristic, and that which will commend it to attentive ex- 
amination, is its practical consideration of the great subject 
which ought even more completely to engage the attention of 
these practical Citizens, that of Reconstruction. So that while 
the subject itself, and its every related question, is " obviously 
pure matter of lav^' " — "obviously matters of legal right, — of 
law purely — "; our Author, instead of the law, gives ns his 
practical views abounding in truth and wisdom, and which, as 
we have seen, give great force and effect to my endeavor; even 
to this argument deduced from premises diametrically opposed 
to his own. In illustration, we have the discussion following. 
Our Author controverts the position taken by Judge Curtis, 



184 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.'''' [T. 2. 

" that the southern States are noiv as rightfully, and should be 
as effectively, in the Union, as they were before the madness of 
their people attempted to carry them out of it." 

That eminent American Jurist, whose fame would be undying 
had he never uttered aught else than his opinion in the Dred 
Scott case, commits no mistake here, if he and Mr. Loring are 
right as to their main premise of National Sovereignty. And 
had Mr. Loring attempted a legal argument to rebut Judge 
Curtis, and prove how and why the Confederate States were not 
remitted to their rights, but that we held over them the rights of 
conquest; the result must have been inevitable, to convince our 
Author of the utter unsoundness of his premises. But instead 
of law, we have these eminently practical opinions and deduc- 
tions : — 

[96^*] It is presumed, that, by this time, the author must be convinced that a 
very great majority of the people of the Northern States entertain a totally contrary 
opinion. And if, from the votes cast in the late elections, those of interested office- 
seekers and their friends, of sympathizers in the rebellion from the start to this 
hour, of hirelings paid for their ballots, of those actuated by an unrelenting hatred 
of the Republican party as a controlling motive, and of the hordes of ignorant for- 
eigners who constitute the strength of the Democratic party in the great cities, were 
to be stricken out of the count, he would, it is believed, find himself in a minority, 
in point of numbers, indeed most miserable. 

Suppose Judge Curtis to be solitary and alone in his opinion ; 
does that prof e him wrong ? It gives color to the supposition 
that he is, to have all the Citizens against him, but would that 
be substantial evidence in law ? Is not the law, too, reqpisite to 
sound judgment as well as facts ? But our lawyer having more 
confidence in the latter, casts the former aside, thus continu- 
ing:— 

[97**] But how does this theory comport with the facts ? It is undeniable, in 
view of all the evidence before the world, — in the report of the Committee upon 
Reconstruction ; in the daily reports from Southern newspapers ; in the public 
speeches and addresses of the leading men of the South, both occasional and official ; 
in the action of their legislatures and so-called courts of justice ; in the reports of 
the military commanders stationed among them, and of the officers of the Freed- 
men's Bureau ; in the multitudinous relations of murders and outrages upon the 
black man ; and in accounts of the insecurity of life in many parts of the Southern 
States, to any Union man out of the scope of military protection, with which the 
daily papers and private letters are filled, — in the view of all this evidence, and 
with the ghastly massacres of Memphis and New Orleans yet fresh in remembrance, 
it is undeniable that a general and almost universal conviction prevails at this mo- 
ment, among the inhabitants of the rebel States, that their cause was a just one ; 
that the undertaking, on the part of the Government of the United States, to subdae 
them was unrighteous and cruel, and that they are the victims of oppression by the 
mere fortunes of war ; that the debt incurred by them was iu defence of their 



§ 43.] Same Principles to correct Southern Errors. 185 

sacred rights, and ought to be conscientiously paid ; that the debt contracted by 
the United St<ates was the fruit of an unjustifiable and wicked war upon them, and 
should be repudiated, or at least that no portion of it should be assessed upon them ; 
that slavery, which they were forced to abolish, was in truth a divine institution, 
the best jjossible for the black man as well as for the white ; that the security and 
happiness ot both races require that the negro should be held in perpetual subordi- 
nation, as the hewer of wood and drawer of water; that the privilege of the ballot, 
of serving as a juror, or of holding any office of honor or emolument, or of owning 
or hiring land, or of education, are all alike inconsistent with the dignity and safety 
of the white man, or the real good of the black man ; and that, if any ojjportunity 
should hereafter present itself for them to re-assert their right of secession, and 
establish a Southern empire, it would be perfectly righteous for them to do so. 

Such are unquestionably the temper, the feelings, the sentiments, and opinions 
of the great majority of Southern men and women at this time, and of nearly all of 
their recognized leaders. If, then, the authority of the Constitution and the laws 
of tlie United States is, or appears to be, so far established among them, that its 
courts and magistrates of law and other officers are permitted to re-assume their 
functions, and no open or organized resistance of it is ventured upon, they never- 
theless all stand upon the ashes of this smothered volcano, whose embers are still 
burning with intense heat beneath them, and where existing forms of law and gov- 
ernment are notoriously inadequate for the security of the lives and liberty ol' the 
freedmen, who lie exposed to the merciless inflictions of State legislation, and the 
still more merciless persecutions of vindictive social hatred, from which nothing in 
the existing Constitution and laws can protect them. 

While the concluding opinion is by no means to be subscribed 
to, and the harsh condemnation appears wholly out of place in 
the courteous treatise of our generous Author; " it is undeniable 
that an almost universal conviction prevails at this moment, 
among the inhabitants of the rebel [Confederate] States, that 
their cause was a just one," etc. 

But although undeniable, it seems well to substantiate it ; 
and as, in examining these errors of the North, the object should 
be and is less to prove the existence of wrong, than to ascertain 
the cause and provide an adequate remedy, so should it be as to 
the South. With this view, our practical Author, instead of 
applying the law to the case, and ascertaining by that straight 
rule what is crooked and twisted, he continues with his evi- 
dences of fact : — 

[98^'^] This seeming restoration, then, of the authority of the Constitution and 
the laws, if, indeed, such seeming can be said to exist, is but an outward show ; 
aud, while the heart of the South remains unchanged, can be but a hollow truce, 
unless some fitting safeguard for the future be erected. Nor can it be justly said 
that such precautions would indicate unjust and unworthy suspicions of the good 
iiiith of the inhabitants of the Southern States, who have professedly returned to 
their allegiance. The difiiculty is not in supposing them less worthy of trust than 
other men, or than the people of the Nortli might be in the like circumstances. It is 
in the nature of man, that he cannot long and patiently submit in silence and quiet 
under the sense of such accumulated wrong and injustice as the people of the South 



186 Pt,eply to 3Ir. Loring upon '■'■ Reconstruction y [T. 2. 

imagine to be thus heaped upon them. And, if the smothered fire should not find 
vent in another open outbreak, it inevitably must in the secret windings of polit- 
ical machinations and combinations tending to the same end. Some security, 
therefore, seems indispensable for the preservation of any future peace or perma- 
nent safety of the Union. 

But why, it is asked, is not the new oath of allegiance sufficient, and all that can 
be reasonably demanded of lionorable men or good citizens 1 The answer is ob- 
vious. Nearly all the leading men of the South had taken the oath of allegiance to 
the United States, and broke it unliesitatingh- to take part in the rebellion, and 
substitute a new oath of allegiance to another and hostile government. And they 
did this, they say, conscientiously, imder the conviction that allegiance was prima- 
rily due to their respective States, and that the allegiance due to the United States 
was secondary only. And in this view they were and are sustained by the nearly 
unanimous voice of their people. And, they still earnestly maintain that they were 
right in this construction of their duties, and spurn with indignation the imputation 
of any treason or falsehood against the Government of the United States. And, this 
being so, what security can there be that tliis new oath will not be taken or con- 
strued with the like mental reservation ? or, if that might not be, why might they 
not hereafter, and with truth, assert that this oath was not voluntary, but one ex- 
torted under duress and the force of arms, and therefore not binding upon the con- 
science ■? 

Then follows [TJ^^^ naturally resulting from these premises, 
which was quoted as a finished specimen of argument; begin- 
ning, — " In view, therefore, of the facts, and of the general prin- 
ciples to be applied to them," etc. " The facts " are pretty well 
supplied ; but where are " the general principles " ? If they are 
to " be applied," must they not first be supplied, if not already 
in possession ? But as we have seen, our shrewd advocate 
takes no responsibility here, leaving each reader to obtain his 
own supply, and make his own a[)plication. 

It will probably be admitted, as Mr. Loring declares, that the 
principles and the law are equally indispensable to decide the 
questions before us, as are the facts. Practical views, like these 
of our Author, abound on all sides ; but where is the progress to 
a satisfactory solution of the difficult problems ? The conclu- 
sion is therefore natural, that a fair and thorough application of 
the theory, the science of our Governments, is indispensable ; 
and the most practical method that can possibly be devised to 
settle the questions at issue. 

The subjects may be, and I trust soon will be, more invitingly 
and ably presented and advocated ; and my prime object is to 
bring the great intellects of the country to bear rightly, logically, 
legally upon the disputed points. But it must be after my 
method. I say my method, meaning distinctly to claim its pa- 
ternity ; for where is the first man either in Congress or out of 
it, who in public discussion resorts to the law and to principles ? 



§ 43.] Same Principles to correct Southern Errors. 187 

They talk about them, as Hoes our Author, but who applies 
them ? Here we are now nearly two years through with the 
fighting part of our troubles ; and what progress have we made 
toward their settlement ? How many are there of these practi- 
cal, sensible Citizens, who do not hold to the insufferable non- 
sense, that the Citizens of the seceded States are actually rebels, 
and yet that we have the rights of conquest ! Does not the 
North, then, need an application of law and principles? 

Nor is the application less desirable as the South is regarded. 
Mr. Loring has correctly portrayed southern sentiments ; for the 
correction of which the sole remedy is a resort to the principles 
which should govern the conduct of States. As to holding those 
States as conquered Provinces, attempting to govern them as we 
wrongfully have done the Territories; it would more than aught 
else that could be conceived, imperil our entire system. Self- 
government is the foundation principle of our institutions, the 
removal of which to such an extent as the continued governing 
of those eleven States, would work our own ruin. 

A fair and full examination will establish the truth of my 
affirmation, that we have been drawn into all our difficulties, 
from the eiToneous and conflicting teachings of the adverse 
schools of Massachusetts and South Carolina ; in which the 
chief teachers on neither side properly combated the errors of the 
other, because neither of them " Studied Principles, Scrutinized 
Premises." And the truth will, I think, be pretty effectually de- 
monstrated, and the cause of errors ascertained, when in the fu- 
ture examination of the Hayne- Webster, and Webster-Calhoun 
controversies, we shall see how entirely practical instead of 
legal, was the presentation of argument. 

My efforts to promote the examination, which will be contin- 
ued should the public be interested sufficiently to justify it, will 
have the South in view equally with the North. While they 
have been correct, that our Union is Federal, and not Consoli- 
dated ; they have run into an opposite error, that free and inde- 
pendent States could not be bound in National Union, but must 
have an imprescriptible right to nullify or secede at will. And 
we in the North, misled by Pufendorf's idea probably, that 
Command is a more effective band of society than Covenant, 
have imagined that we must have a Sovereignty even over these 
States tohold them to their compact. The immense diflerence 
in man's nature as an individual and as a State, has been disre- 



188 Reply to Mr. Loring upon " Reconstruction.''^ [T. 2. 

garded ; so effectually, as that even our Declaration of Indepen- 
dence has been almost universally applied to man as an individ- 
ual, instead of to these free and independent States. 

To touch the religious sentiments of the South, by convincing 
them of their errors and misconceptions, is the true and quickest 
means of changing their political sentiments, which is indispen- 
sable to our peace and friendship. And what better calculated 
for this purpose, than to let our southern brothers see that we 
are honestly and earnestly examining our own misconceptions 
and perversions of principles? Let us as Christians, from lakes 
to gulf, from ocean to ocean, unite our prayers to the Infinite 
Giver of " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," that we 
may have wisdom to understand them, grace to properly prac- 
tise them. Let us realize our own weakness, impotence, noth- 
ingness, as individuals ; and the insufficiency of even free and 
independent States without National Union. Let us apprehend 
the truth, derived by Aristotle and other sages from " the Laws 
of Nature," that man being a political animal, the State is indis- 
, pensable to him ; and which the Bible assumes without argu- 
ment. And while man individually is one of the most defenceless 
of animals, most needing protection from his very fellow; uni- 
tedly, he forms in the State an all-sufficient protector against 
man individually ; and by National Union of these States, 
against man collectively. Whereas he is individually the most 
vicious of animals ; he forms collectively the holy family, and 
the most perfect of social organizations, the State. Though the 
most perfect man is so frail and perishable, that his fittest em- 
blem of existence is the morning cloud and early dew ; yet he 
generates the enduring State, which would continue for all time, 
were the laws of its existence duly regarded. Yet even States 
being governed by imperfect individuals, leads to evils unnatu- 
ral, and to decay and death. 

" The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God " apply, therefore, 
to man in the three-fold relation, of the individual, the family, 
the State ; and were the distinction duly regarded, much of the 
confusion concerning politics would be relieved. The sole cause 
of all the evils afflicting humanity, is ignorance, disregard, per- 
version of those laws ; knowledge of which is only attainable by 
individuals. Let us, then, in the South and in the North, heed- 
ing our Saviours injunctions, quoted preceding the title-page, 
apply ourselves to this all-important study. And to conclude 



§ 43.] Same Principles to correct Southern Errors. 189 

this appeal to each Reader to " Study Principles, Scrutinize Pre- 
mises," what could be more appropriate than Pa\il's commenda- 
tion of the chief of Christian graces ? — 

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I 
am become as sounding brass, or a tinlsling cj-mbal. And tliough I have the gift 
of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have 
all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to 
be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 

Charity suffereth long and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not 
itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not 
easily provoked, thinketh no evil ; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the 
truth ; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all 
things. 

Charity never faileth : but whetlier there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether 
there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish 
away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part ; but when that which is 
perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a 
child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I 
became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, 
darkly ; but then face to face ; now I know in part ; but then shall I know, even 
as also I am known. 

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three ; but the greatest of these is 
eliarity ! — 1 Cor. xiii 



THE iwTHOi^xjCToii^'' com:3?eive>, 

[ereiu alludod to, i^ published as a pamphlet under the title of CITIZENSHIP, SOVEREIGNTY. 
By Jonx S. Wright, of Chicago, Assisted by (the late) Prof. J. Holmes Agnew, D. D., of 

X jvv York. 

Sectional Heads ; and M<irginal Headings. 

iln the margin of the pages, arc coi)ious notes, to facilitate present reading, and future reference, 
bme of these notes we condense under their sectional head, to give an idea of the contents. 
§ 1. Whether of the Imase of God or Beast — Force or Reason. 
§ 2. Our Difficulties and their Causes. 
Soutli and North flglit for popular Iiij^Iits. South aL;aiiist Consolidatiou. North fight for Uuion aud State 
i{iy;hts. Pi-inciplcs of Goveruuicut not uudt'rstood. Ifesuitiiii^ wrongs, etc. 
§ 3. The Science of Government. 
Its (Jrandeur. God teaches it. Man's Creation. Doiniiiion, Fall. Hooker on Man sinful. Bible teaches by 
xanijjlL' as well as Precept. Hebrews a Federal Uepubli.', etc.. 

§ 4. Rise of Modern International Lavsr. 
Tlir r.ible the basis. Grotius, Father of the Science. Earlier anthorities, Aristotle, Cicero, etc. ; Hooker, 
lalri^h, Kidley. After Grotius, Hobbos, Harrington, Cuinlx-rland, Pulendorf, Selden, Locke, etc. 

§ 5. Importance of the Law of Nations to the United States. 
These States separate and indeprndont. ('(mf'usion as to Stato Sovereignty. Kent, Story, Wheaton. Gov- 
rnment based o^j Sovereignty. Inlidrls sei-k its destruction. Paine, etc. 

§ 6. Elementary Principles applied to these States. 
Some think States, some United States the subject. Facilities for deciding. History short — Records cora- 
ilete. A time of reflection to come. QCr'Thi-'i work for Business men, etc. 

§ 7. Summary of the Examination. 
The Colonics. Colonies became States, not a Stato. Care of State Sovereignty. New Constitution Federal. 
fVebster, Calhoun. Compact not violatetl by tlie North. Fed. Gov. not responsible for State Wrongs, etc. 
§ 8. Considerations for the Worth — How to end this "War. 
Noitli cannot propose Peace. Sulijugation inii)racticablc. Not in a War of Subjugation, but of Defence. 
Jow can South end its War ? I5y our lleturn to l'V>deralism. South Kight in this, etc. 

§ 9. To the North : Federal Union and Slave Responsibility. 
If " partly National," " partly " responsible for slavery. Higher Law. New Constitution augments not 
State Kcsponsibility. " Squatter " Sovereignty, true Doctrine. Louisiana Purchase, etc. 
t § 10. To the North : Federalism Desirable. 

Free States must be small. Made strong in Federal Union. Brougham mistakes Federalism. Differs with 
Iristotle and Montesquieu. Jlonarchy and free States. Small Societies a Nuisance, etc. 

§ 11. To the North : Importance of Union among Ourselves. 
Our present Divisions. We must support our Government. Strong Bonds of Federalism. Virginia's 
Sights in North-West. State Rights in Louisiana Purchase. West will not yield them. Jeffersou, etc. 
§ 12. To the South : Benefits of examining International Law. 
Both South and North bound by these Laws. Knowledge requisite to Practice. A Law, a rule to work 
)Oth ways. Calhoun, Cumberland. Pact and Faith. South wrong as to .ludiciary. De Tocqueville. South 
ihould have gone to Court instead of War, etc. 

§ 13. To the South : as to their present Secession. 
South overlooked State Rights in common Territory. Calhoun's blending Nullification and Secession, 
Uissoin-i restriction'violated. French Treaty. South misunderstood State Kights, etc. 
§ 14. To the South : as to the Nature of this War. 
In it just 1 Grotius on keeping Faith. On Fear. Our Duty to defend Fort Sumter. South attack wrong 
Jovernracnt. South offensive, we defensive. Misjudge North-west. West taking lessons, etc. 
§ 15. Dignity and Worth of State Citizenship. 
AVhat is Citizenship .' Sovereignty. Its Divine Origin. Everybody a subject but Monarchs. No one born 
rce. Diiferent Forms of Government. Citizenship in Cities and Colonies imperfect. Virginia a State 2'Jth 
[uue, New York not until Dth July, 1770, etc. 

I § 16. Increased by Federal Citizenship. 

[ Federal Union makes Citizens of different States, fellow-Citizens. Dutch Union. Others. Ours broken to 
nake another " more perfect." State Sovereignty justitied it. Right of Secession, etc. 
■ § 17- Federalism important to protect Citizenship. 

Rulers need checks. Federalism best gives them. Paul and Roman Citizenship. Our system better, yet 
Mtizeus outraged. Habeas Corpus. Its Origin and Rights. Dangers in single Republics. 
§ 18. Motives and Ways to Peace and a new Federal Union. 
War jeopardizes Rights. West wants honorable peace and Federal Uuiou. Old Union broken. A new one 

be made. Old States should lead. West will not wait long. West and South, etc. 

19. How Britain and America can be made Friends. 
Colonial Rights. Locke aud Blackstonc's confusion of principles. We never subjects of Parliament. Brit.im 

1 Monarchy, not Aristocracy. King agreed not to tax us. Our rights as Britons, etc, 

20. Friendly Aid from other European States. 
Our Ancient Ally, France. ^Jlontesquieu, Lacroix, Necker, De Tocqueville, Guizot, Hautcfeuille, Labou- 
aye, etc. Her " Republic, one and indivisible," failed. Federalism would have saved it. 
§ 21. Ultimate Reliance, however, must be on Ourselves. 
We must understand " the Laws of Nature and of Nature's Gc>n." Mr. Everett's new work on the Law of 
iJations delayed. Reason — Everett finds Constitution of Massachussetts accords, etc. 

§ 22. The Conclusion. 
The Compend not an analytic Synopsis. Object not to prove what is right, hut existence of wrongs. The 
riews, if novel now, were not a century .ago. Citizens should have the knowledge, etc. 

TERMS. This pamphlet, a large 8vo. of 220 pp., Avould make an ordinary 12mo. of 
5ome -500 pages. It is sold for only $1.25 per single copy; 6 copies, $6, 13 copies $12. 
^^ Postage or express charges will be prepaid. 



A MASSACIUSETTS-ILLINOIS PEACE-OFFERING. 



To Fellow-Citizens of mj' adopted and native States, these Tracts are tendered as a hum- 
ble peace-offering for them to lay upon our country's altar, which is so red with their own 
best blood. If suitable and honorable, would they not welcome more a sacrilice for peace 
than for war? Of Citizens who so resolutely, gallantly gave up their own dear sons to 
sacrifice, and poured forth their treasure in countless sums to maintain National Union: 
couM any moderate sacrifice be solicited for this same object which thej' would withhold V 

I trow not. These sons in the East and in the West, like brothers will unite in the in- 
quiry, whether there be this simple solution of our difficulties that is imagined; a solution 
real and permanent to result from a candid examination into the nature of our Governments 
and Union. While the improbability of proving gross errors in chief statesmen both North 
and South, will prompt to cautious judgment; the certainty of conflict between the two 
schools of South Carolina and Massachusetts, and the overwhelming importance of the 
questions at issue, will secure for me a candid hearing. Nor would entire correctness be 
requisite, but reasonable evidence that I was right in the main. Fellow-Citizens, too, of both 
these States, will recognize my claims upon them to give the project a suitable presentation 
to the public. Therefore, with entire confidence, this small edition, all which I could possi- 
bly print, is submitted exclusively to them for judgment. 



CENERAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 

For reasons that will be given in the Introduction to Tract I., it has been thought best to 
begin this effort with tracts instead of a bound volume. But tracts find small sale through 
ordinary chaimels, except the light literature ( ?) This renders it necessary that every 
Reader who approves the enterprise should do what he can. Each should order more or 
less copies to distribute to friends near or remote. Others should order a quantity to be put 
on sale by some merchant ; the discount from the retail price aft'ording a good margin for 
distribution to those who are unable to pay for copies. Beginning in this small way, if those 
who ought to be interested will give a little attention and energv to the subject, the circle 
of inflnence will rapidly expand, soon covering the entire country. 



BESIDES MONEY, LEND THE INFLUENCE OF YOUR NAME. 

Only by much effort will the change of opinion from National to State Sovereignty be 
effected. Each Citizen who approves the object in general, although he may dissent from 
some of the views and plans, should not merely subscribe, but lend the influence of his 
name, by writing a longer or shorter letter commending the subject, with such exceptions 
as he pleases, to the attention of his neighbors. This would be printed to the extent of a 
page, in the copies ordered, without extra charge. If a Democrat and Republican would 
unite in such an order, it would accord with the spirit of the enterprise. 



PRICES of J. S. WRIGHT'S POLITICAL TRACTS. 





No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. 3. 












No. of Conflicting 


Reply to 


Citizenship, 


Separate 


Order 


Total at 


Total 


Disc. 


Copies. Teachings. 


Mr. Loring. 


SoTereignty. 


Orders. 


for three. 


Retail. 


Dis. 


p. c. 


'1 $0.40 


$1.25. 


S1.25. 


$2.90 


$2.50 








10 


•ii S6=»3.50 


@ .fl.lO=»11.00 


@ #1.10=$11.00 


25.50 


23.00 


.$29.00 


$6.00 


20 


25 


30= 7.60 


95= 23.75 


95= 23.75 


55.00 


50.00 


72.50 


22.50 


31 


50 


2.5=1260 


80= 40.00! 80= 40.00 


92.50 


80.00 


145.001 65.00 


45 


100 


£0=20.00 


60= 60.00 


60= 60.00 


140.00 


120.00 


290.00 


170.00 


69 



Postage or express charges will be prepaid. The subscriber who has ordered ten copies 
of one or two, wishing to send for the third, can deduct the previous amount sent from that 
in the column, " Order for three," and remit the balance. A subscriber for ten can send 
for fifteen more, deducting the previous amount from the sum named for twenty-five; and 



y 9 B 9 '< 



.^N^ . 









-.x^ 



o^ 






^..x^' 






^^ %. 




^v^^' -. 









^./ ,<v 



S>' 



■ A^ 






o ., s * .V\ 



^^^ . '• ^ '■ ': 






.Oo, 



xC^ -;>, 






o.^- 


















,0 o 









\ 






cS-^ 



^' •/', 



%.^ 



^' N 



'' \\ (1 N (. 'I' ' -' b ^ 



A^^-^ 



"S- cr- 






^^>- 


v^^ 






x^ 


^r. 


- 








.^^^ 






■ ,^^ 


% 












xOo. 



• x^-^' 



^' <P„ 



.-i\ 



^\^ 



xN 



,0 



°^ ,-0' ^' 



!( I \ " \\ 









^. .N^^' 






cf-. 



\' 



-\^^ 






..x^"^>. 



-N^ .-^ '■ , •^, 






.^^••^ 



^ ■'5- '" Av .'^"*,;<^.. ' A^^^ ."-^ 



' V 



: %■ 



,0 o. 



•> . o ^ .0^ 



vV' ■/>. 






>0- A^ ■s ,'-" 






.'i. <i- 












.. "' ^ a' 










v^' 









;^ 
















V ^ o ^ c ^ 



•■>, 



.^-^ 



'// 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ||||j^ 



013 789 956 5 • 



H'ii><H!'Ui>JH?r>Ji't»f!.UJiil 



iiii 



' ft ' 



I 



m 



ill 



